LANL: The Rest of the Story

Last Post

2010-01-27T07:59:00.003-07:00

In memory of Frank Young.

1963 - 2010

Frank

2010-01-23T14:57:00.005-07:00

I just received this note from Frank's wife:

I just got a call from Frank's parents in South Carolina. Frank's body was found this morning at the motel where he was staying near our property where he was building our house. I don't have many more details. I know he's been ill the last few weeks. His parents and I were encouraging him to see a doctor, but he had refused.

I will be shutting this blog down shortly. If someone wants to start a new LANL blog send me email at lanlblog@parrot-farm.net and I will post a link to it.

--Doug

Position Open

2010-01-19T20:26:00.008-07:00

Job Title: Blog Maintainer

Job Description: Long hours, no pay, no measurable benefits. Current maintainers totally fed up. Plenty of (potential) upside. Must be willing to take abuse from Anonymous Cowards.

Plenty of purported reportable corporate malfeasance and active cover-up activities currently in progress. Think explosions.

Applicants inquire within. Contact current (and soon-to-be past) blog maintainers for job interview.

Reply to lanlblog@parrot-farm.net, Ref: There Are Plenty Of Better Jobs Out There, if interested.

Time to Declare Victory

2010-01-12T12:45:00.021-07:00

Yes, I do believe it's time to declare victory.

LANS has won; nearly everybody else lost. I agree with the consensus opinion that a new Deputy Administrator at NNSA will not make a bit of difference with regards to how the "new, improved" LANL is being run. Given that, there really is not much reason for my continued participation in moderating this blog.

One reflection of the new work environment at LANL is that while we still occasionally receive a clever or humorous contribution from a reader, the vast majority of comments we see here depict an increasingly bitter, back-stabbing, cowardly, and (dare I say) stupid element from the "new, improved" LANL community. Kudus, however, to Anonymous poster of 11:46 AM from the Will it make any difference? post. LANS is leading LANL to greatness. Funny stuff.

From my perspective the time has come to leave you all in the capable hands of that crack team of upper-level LANS managers, their Performance Blog, and not least of all, that fine cadre of spin-masters (Hi, Kevin!) who work in the LANL Communications Office.

I'll still hang around here, but probably won't contribute much; we'll leave that to Frank. In the mean time, I'll share some of the more appropriate contributions from the good folks at Despair.com which seem to have been written specifically with LANL in mind.

Later,

--Doug

Will it make any difference?

2010-01-10T12:17:00.010-07:00

Will the appointment of a new Deputy under D'Agostino at NNSA result in any improvements at LANL? I personally doubt it.

PBI's, baby.

--Doug

Donald L. Cook, Nominee for Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy

Dr. Donald L. Cook was the Managing Director of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in the United Kingdom from 2006 to 2009. In this capacity, he was accountable for AWE’s performance on the contract with the U.K. Ministry of Defence, which includes support of the U.K. Trident warheads and development and sustainment of capability in nuclear weapon design, development, manufacturing, qualification, assembly, transport, support in service, and finally, decommissioning, dismantlement, and disposal. Prior to heading AWE, Dr. Cook worked at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico for 28 years in Pulsed Power Sciences, Microtechnologies, Infrastructure, and Security. From 1999-2006, he was Director of the MESA Program Center, accountable for design and construction of the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) complex. In 2003, he assumed Program Director responsibilities for Sandia’s Infrastructure Program and for Sandia’s Safeguards and Security Technologies Program, which responded to a new Design Basis Threat. From 1977-1999, Dr. Cook led efforts in pulsed power accelerator design and experimentation, fusion research, hydrodynamics, radiography, diagnostic development, and computational code development. He managed the Sandia Inertial Confinement Fusion program from 1984-1993 and was Director of Pulsed Power Sciences from 1993-1999. Dr. Cook is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Institute of Physics (IOP).

Continuing in the Theme

2010-01-08T19:44:00.005-07:00

A comment from the previous post:

DOE Gives Nuclear Labs One Heck of a Long Winter Vacation
Enjoy your vaction.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/01/doe-gives-nuclear-labs-one-heck-of-a-long-winter-vacation.html

No oversight required: friends cover for friends. Monkey no see, monkey no [yada yada] ...

--Doug

Cover-up?

2010-01-03T11:15:00.010-07:00

Back in early 2005 when the bid preparation activities for the LANL contract were hot and heavy, NNSA's Tom D'Agostino justified the 10-fold increase in the new LANL contract award fee by stating that "increased efficiencies of operation" by the new Corporate M&O would "more than offset" the additional cost of the contract.

Now, five years later we see that the real additional cost of running LANL is on the order of $200 million more than it was back in the days of non-profit operations when the University of California ran the place for a mere $8 million per year. Since LANL is now run by a for-profit corporation, it has to pay Gross Receipt Taxes to the state of New Mexico, which accounts for most of the additional cost of operations over and above the current $79 million award fee.

Have we seen any cost savings due to increased efficiencies of operation by the new corporate M&O of LANL? Let's innumerate some of the efficiency improvements that the NNSA and LANS, LLC have brought to LANL:

JB Weld! Stuffed into the USB ports of every lab computer in sight. In addition to making use of the computer less efficient, it voided the warranties of thousands of LANL machines.
Ladder Training.
Shoes that GRIP!
LOOK out for each other!
Tripling the number of upper-level managers.
NNSA-mandated 5% annual staff attrition rates.
Glovebox computing.
Efficient loss of all email accrued during the 2008 holiday shutdown.
Efficient (and friendly) service by the laboratory's Personal Security Group.
Abysmal "Employment Engagement" survey results, with planned 5-month results "rollout".
"Secret" NNSA lab Performance Reports.
Automatic LANS, LLC annual contract renewal, in perpetuity.
On again, off again manned guard stations.
Ballooning overhead burden. This may have something to do with the 40 - 50 additional highly-paid top level managers who now enjoy employment at LANL. It may also be related to the increased efficiency of operations.
A new, efficient T&E system, with blazingly fast turn-around.

Considering that one person, NNSA's Tom D'Agostino was the sole person responsible for selecting the Bechtel-led LANS, LLC to be the new LANL contractor, and

considering that the promised "efficiency improvements" never materialized, and

considering that Mr. D'Agostino has declared that the annual NNSA Performance Evaluation awards by which NNSA judged LANS, LLC deserving of an Outstanding, 90% performance rating this year are Secret, Not For Public Viewing,

You don't suppose that there is a government/corporate cover-up in progress, do you?

Nah, me neither.

--Doug

Lab Performance Reports Withheld

2009-12-28T11:32:00.002-07:00

From John Fleck's Albuquerque Journal Science blog last week:

Lab Performance Reports Withheld

By John Fleck
Monday, 21 December 2009 12:24

Nearly three years ago, the Journal and the National Nuclear Security Administration tangled over whether the annual "Performance Evaluation Report" for Sandia Labs, which the government reviews Sandia's stewardship of taxpayer dollars and U.S. nuclear weapons, should be a matter of public record. Since then, things improved, and NNSA did a better job of clearing the document for public review in a timely fashion. The copies I got had some key information redacted, but they were at least public in large measure.

No more. The NNSA told us last week that, as a matter of policy, the reviews of Sandia, Los Alamos and the other contracts that manage our nuclear stockpile, are now considered sensitive procurement-related. So we know that NNSA thinks the Bechtel-led team in charge at Los Alamos is doing a better job, but the details of how that decision was arrived at are secret.

As of this morning, my Freedom of Information Act requests are in the mail. I'll let you know what NNSA says in response.

Let us know if you gain any insight from your FOIA requests, John. We're curious why NNSA thinks LANS is doing such a great job up here.

--Doug

Comment of the Week

2009-12-26T09:08:00.003-07:00

From the Nuclear Bomb Researchers Accidentally Blow Up Building post.

Short, sweet:

We need door training.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T07:05:00.002-07:00

Nuclear Bomb Researchers Accidentally Blow Up Building

2009-12-24T11:35:00.006-07:00

So, who are we to believe? According to a number of news sources, LANL staffers accidentally blew up part of a building with a "gun which acts like a Civil War Cannon" last week. Here's one report:

http://gawker.com/5433432/nuclear-bomb-researchers-accidentally-blow-up-building

Here's another, from Frank Munger's Atomic City Underground blog:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2009/12/new_twist_in_a_long_history_of.html

But then we learn that LANL/NNSA has already "Roarked" the story. Wired reports that they've received an email from National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Damien LaVera which implies that what we've first heard might not be the exact story:

Here are the facts: On December 16, Los Alamos conducted a standard proof test on a new design for a catch tank in the target chamber for one of our large bore powder guns (LBPG). These types of experiments are routine and responsible. The LBPG is used to conduct measurements of material properties at pressures needed for understanding nuclear weapons performance. During this particular test, unexpected explosive damage occurred and, because that damage could result in $1 million in damages, an investigation was automatically triggered. That investigation will seek to identify the cause of the incident and any changes in procedures that might be required. NNSA, Los Alamos, and all of our facilities take their commitment to safety very seriously. It is important to note that no personnel were injured from this event, no hazardous or radioactive materials were involved, and that lab's incident response mechanisms appear to have performed as intended.

Which version is the Real Story? We'll ponder this over the holidays.

--Doug

Where LANS Fits in the Overall Scheme

2009-12-20T06:38:00.001-07:00

From the Nut Files

2009-12-17T20:37:00.005-07:00

Submitted for your approval (imagine Rod Serling's voiceover here).

On this blog we receive with frightening frequency untold numbers of contributions from left wing-nuts, right wing-nuts, and a few from those wing-nuts that are somewhere in between. What all of these fringe contributors seem to have in common is that they fly into semi-spectacular tizzies after it eventually dawns on them that their submission has been rejected. The usual reason for rejection is that the comment had nothing to do with LANL.

As is the case with our latest contribution in this genre. However, something about the earnestness of this one kind of tickled me, so I figured I'd go ahead & share it. It has all of the elements of dozens of previously-rejected comment submissions in this class: right-wing mouth-foaminess, a pervasive theme of "Obama is bad", all mixed in with the delicate stench of good ol' Amerikan Red Neck-iness.

Here it is. Enjoy, while imagining (as I do) wide staring eyes in which you can practically see the slowly counter-rotating spirals, and that endearing little fleck of foaming spittle that collects in the corner of his mouth as the rant progresses.

Oh, I almost forgot: !!!

Four major non-posted stories on this blog:

1. The Global Warming Hoax has arrieved at their respective doorsteps at DOE, and LLNL, Mr. Gregory Friedman (DOE), Mr. Paul Ehlenbach (LLNL), and Mr. Benjamin Santer (LLNL), due to the Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla) Climategate investigation, and notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from CRU/UEA in UK, November 24, 2009.

1.1 DOE has paid the Junk Scientist Mr. Phil Jones at CRU/UEA for 25 years, WHY?

1.2 Doesn´t Mr. Phil Jones, DOE, and Mr. Benjamin Santer at LLNL understand the Scientific Method???

1.3 Defend the Scientific Method!!!

2. Obama Threatening To Close Offutt AFB If Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson Doesn´t Fall In Line On Health Care, as is reported by the Weekly Standard, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity at FNC, Rush Limbaugh, The Obama File, The Washington Examiner, Hot Air Blog, ATLAS SHRUGS, Theodore´s World, BNI, ACE OF SPADES HQ, and WND. (Offutt AFB in Nebraska is the headquarters for US STRATEGIC Command.)

2.1 Defend Our Defenders!!!

3. "Harvard Simulation: U.S. Will Fail to Stop Iran Nukes," IsraelNN.com, December 6, 2009, "Iran successfully simulates nuclear wahead detonation - report," DEBKAfile Special Report, December 4, 2009, and "Iran´s Missile Rattling Signals Command Defiance and Rising Military Threat," December 16, 2009, at http://blog.heritage.org/.

3.1 Defend US Against a Nuclear Armed Iran!!!

4. "41 Senators to Obama: No START Without Nuclear Modernization," December 17, 2009, athttp://blog.heritage.org/, and "Don´t Circumvent the Senate´s Important Role in Negotiating Strategic Arms Reductions Treaties," December 9, 2009, by Baker Spring, WebMemo #2725, at the Heritage Foundation.

4.1 Defend Our Defenders!!!

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin

2009-12-17T12:02:00.005-07:00

For me, the handwriting has been on the wall since December, 2005 when D'Agostino announced that LANS had been awarded the LANL contract. The recent LANL Performance Review demonstrating that NNSA is extremely happy with LANS' performance is just one more bit of validation that LANL is on a carefully charted course, no variations wanted nor expected.

Enjoy the trip!

--Doug

PS: Sorry to have interrupted your deep, meaningful conversations about snow removal, please continue...

2009 performance review gives LANS, LLC 90% of available award fee and another year to contract term
By comparison, the award fee for FY08 was 88% and 81% for FY07.

The National Nuclear Security Administration has evaluated the Laboratory’s performance for fiscal year 2009 and awarded LANS, LLC 90% of the available award fee and added another year to the term of the LANS contract to manage and operate Los Alamos National Laboratory. That extension stretches the contract term through September 30, 2015. By comparison, the award fee for FY08 was 88% and 81% for FY07.

NNSA cited its “very high expectations” and noted significant progress in the Lab’s performance overall, especially in achieving its mission and delivering on program assignments.

“Thank you for your continued hard work and dedication to continuous improvement,” said Lab Director Michael Anastasio.

Anastasio noted that many accomplishments throughout the Laboratory contributed to this encouraging customer assessment, including substantially completing construction of the RLUOB facility as part of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project, the use of the Roadrunner supercomputer, and the accelerated shipment offsite of transuranic waste.

“We’re proud that this year's assessment continues our upward trend,” said Ike Richardson, deputy director. “NNSA’s view of our work is a tribute to the LANL team's continued efforts to enhance discovery science as well as productivity.”

SUMMARY OF FY2009 LANS AWARD FEE DETERMINATION
Los Alamos National Security, LLC
Manager and operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory

Total available fee: $80.2 million
Earned “fee at risk,” or incentive fee: 84%, or $43.3 million
Portion earned of overall fee: 90%, or $72.1 million
(includes fee at risk, fixed fee, work for others):

Customer Service

2009-12-12T12:22:00.012-07:00

By request, we are making a top level post around this rather bizarre letter that was sent to all staff last week by Larry Freestone, Group Leader, Personal Security.

Here's the letter, which was posted to the Don't plan on going anywhere, anytime soon post:

Serving close to 2,500 employees per week, the Laboratory's Personnel Security Group is a hub -- helping Lab staff address clearance issues, resolve badge-related problems, process classified visit requests, respond to drug tests, and so on.

Few Lab employees engage Personnel Security by choice, and our staff periodically sees some unprofessional behavior that should not be present in any workplace. Fortunately, these people represent a small percentage of personnel security customers, but the numbers seem to be increasing.

"Customer service is not easy. Few people have the temperament to be successful in this type of job. However, every single person working at Los Alamos National Laboratory provides some level of customer service."People seem to be less tolerant and more vocal in ever-increasing numbers both here and across the country. Common courtesies are giving way to rude, sarcastic, cutting, or belittling comments. What perceptions does this behavior create in other Laboratory workers and in our visitors?

Although we are unsure why some choose to behave badly, we hope that it's not the result of perceived inefficiencies by Personnel Security. We strive to make every customer's visit as pleasant as possible given the conditions and procedures over which we have control. When any customer service agent, not just those in Personnel Security, fails to meet expectations, please patiently seek to understand why.

Customer service is not easy. Few people have the temperament to be successful in this type of job. However, every single person working at Los Alamos National Laboratory provides some level of customer service. It may be behind a counter dealing with walk-ins, observing a procedure to ensure it is being done safely, troubleshooting an equation, or courting visitors who have programmatic funds to spend.

I am proud of Personnel Security Group employees for their pleasant and professional behavior day in and day out. There is no place for rudeness; patience and understanding should be the norm. In other words, please treat others as you would want to be treated.

Larry Freestone, Group Leader, Personnel Security

This is one of the comments that discusses the letter.

The trouble with Freestone's letter is that it was driven by a single incident in the personnel security department. Also, while in general personnel security have provided good customer service, unfortunately, there have been a few incidents where they have provided very poor service, particularly in the past. There have been incidents where they have treated my military (Air Force and Navy) customers without any care or patience. In fact, one my key customers from the Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL) indicated he had never been treated so disrespectfully. The other problem I have with this letter, is that I'm sure Anastasio gave the approval to send this to All Employees. Will this be a pattern of hammering all employees every time Mike get's an opportunity? It was "poor customer service" in itself to send this letter to us. LANS wonders why they have not yet "commanded" any respect from us when they send us letters like this one.

Sounds like we may be hearing more about this.

LANS "Engagement Survey" Analysis Summary

2009-12-12T11:26:00.003-07:00

Thanks to the two of you who took the time to analyze the LANS Morale Survey. I'm sure the LANS "Communications Office" (have you noticed how I tend to use quotes to denote an ironic misnomer?) will come out with their own attempt to spin the survey as being positive, but the numbers tell us the Real Story.

I got a call from an Albuquerque Journal reporter on Thursday who was looking for some kind of quantifiable proof of the degrading morale among LANL staff over the years, but I was only able to give him my own subjective opinions. Thanks to 9:22's contribution on the "Survey Rollout" post we now have some solid comparison numbers:

Well, having supplied the data to Doug for posting, I have to say I'm really disappointed you all have been so lazy about analyzing results. (Maybe it's true all the A students have left?) Some of the old survey data is still available from the Newsbulletin archives. So for example:

"I am proud to be associated with the Laboratory"
1997: 82% agree
2004: 79% agree
2009: 66% agree (now "I am proud to tell people I work for the Laboratory")

"Morale in my group is high"
1997: 45%
2004: 40%
2009: 28% ("Morale of my coworkers is good" - note the bar appears to be lowered from "high" to "good").

Also:
2009: 46% agree that "My morale at work is good."
2004: 78% "My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment"
2009: 66% "My work is rewarding"

2004: 66% "Employees are treated with respect, regardless of position"
2009: 49% "Employees are treated with respect"

2004: 60% "Satisfied with my overall compensation incl benefits

2009: 62% "Satisfied with my overall compensation incl benefits"
(Perhaps the only category that's held steady)

2004: 64% "Lab keeps me informed about matters affecting me"
2009: 49% "I feel well-informed about events/decisions/news that affect my job"

2004: 69% "Would recommend Los Alamos as good place to work
2009: 63% "The Laboratory is a good place to work"

Also, 1:28 AM pointed out that most of the lowest-rated responses are a direct reflection of the quality of LANL's current "management team" (there I go with the quotes again):

Let's cut to the quick. Here are the key percentages that register in this document as "Agree"...

-----------------
The leadership team is working together to advance the Laboratory mission. : 37.75 %

Career opportunities at the Laboratory are good. : 33.73 %

Laboratory managers set good examples. : 27.58%

I have confidence in the leadership of the Laboratory. : 28.69 %

The morale of my co-workers is good. : 27.75 %

Laboratory managers consult employees about decisions that affect them. : 25.42 %

The Laboratory rewards those who contribute most. : 23.57 %

I believe that action will be taken on the results of this survey. : 17.30 %
-------------------

In most organizations, abysmal ratings like this would result the the sudden resignation of the executive management. It indicates a total failure of leadership and severe lack of trust of the employees in their top management team. However, with LANS you can be almost certain that there will be no real outcome for their poor leadership skills. PBIs, baby! That's all that matters to NNSA.

Thanks to who ever handed this data off to Doug. Have no doubt, you did the right thing and the many blog readers appreciate the risk you must have taken. God bless you, my friend!

--Doug

Official LTRS Rollout of the 2009 LANS "Engagement Survey" Results

2009-12-09T20:47:00.006-07:00

Otherwise known as: the LANL Morale Survey. The summary numbers can be found here. Sorry about the sideways orientation of the report, but the results are pretty self explanatory. Please feel free to supply your own analysis.

Indefinite Career

2009-12-08T10:50:00.003-07:00

Since you LANL folks have the day off (purportedly, according to one pissed off-sounding anonymous commenter because Mike Anastasio did not want to drive in the snow up from Santa Fe) I thought you might be amused to learn that somebody in the University Of California Office Of The President ended up on the blog here by searching for "indefinite career". It looks to me like UC wants to be in this for-profit NNSA lab business for the long haul. The host name "sor-fharms-1.ad.ucop.edu" should help identify who was looking into this lifetime career opportunity.

--Doug

Click to enlarge

Don't plan on going anywhere, anytime soon

2009-12-07T21:02:00.005-07:00

From the "It's really, really broken" department:

Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:19:49 -0700
To: admin-support@lanl.gov,as-additional@lanl.gov
From: Distributions
Subject: Status of Travel Claims
Sender: owner-admin-support@maillist.lanl.gov

Status of Travel Claims

The Travel Office is currently experiencing a high volume of expense reports and phone calls. We are working to assist everyone as promptly as possible. The current turnaround time for reimbursement is 10 business days. Please advise your travelers of the turnaround time. We work expense reports in the order they are received so let them know it will be approximately 2 weeks before they receive their reimbursement. They should not call the Travel Office. Also, please advise your travelers that by linking the reservations and the credit card transactions to the expense report, it will increase the timeliness of their reimbursement as the processors will not have to look for additional information.

Also please advise your travelers that if they need assistance with entering an expense report, they should refer to the training and checklist provided on the Travel Home Page. Due to the high volume of expense reports, the processors are not available for training. Should you need to call the Travel Office, leave a message. The phone calls are tracked electronically so unless you leave a message we will not have a record of your call so that we can assist you. For Domestic Reimbursement, please select Option 1 "reimbursement" from the main menu and then select Option 1 again for Domestic Reimbursement. For Foreign Travel, select Option 1, then Option 2. For Relocation, select Option 1, then Option 3 for relocation reimbursement. Your patience is requested as we are answering calls as promptly as possible.

Don't call us, we'll call you.

2009-12-07T05:17:00.002-07:00

Lab Conducts First X-Ray Test on Mock Weapon

By John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer
Saturday, December 05, 2009

Los Alamos National Laboratory on Thursday evening took the first ever three-dimensional X-ray movie of a mock nuclear weapon detonation, a milestone two decades in the making.

The test at the lab's Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility, known as "DARHT", used the world's most powerful X-ray machines to take pictures of the inner workings of a W78 nuclear warhead, said Dave Funk, head of the lab's hydrodynamics experiments division.

The 6:09 p.m. test, with more than 60 Los Alamos staff in attendance, was a success, yielding good data on the W78's behavior, Funk said in a telephone interview Friday.

The massive X-ray machine is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's suite of test equipment and computer simulations used to maintain U.S. nuclear weapons without underground test blasts.

Garrett Harencak, a senior National Nuclear Security Administration official overseeing the lab's weapons work, issued a statement calling the test "an important development in the NNSA's stockpile stewardship mission."

"I applaud LANL for reaching this important milestone. DARHT will help ensure a safer and more secure stockpile without testing," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said in a statement.

The test ends an embarrassing episode for the weapons program. DARHT was originally planned in 1988 with a price tag of $30 million to $54 million, but a series of delays because of litigation by environmentalists, design changes and design flaws dragged out the project, and pushed the final price tag over $300 million.

For the first five decades of the U.S. nuclear program, weapons were actually detonated to test them, first above ground and then underground beginning in the 1960s. "You got the answer, right? It worked or not," Funk explained.

The United States abandoned full test blasts in 1992, establishing a program of small-scale experiments and computer simulations instead.

In a nuclear weapon, high explosives are used to squeeze plutonium to create a critical mass, yielding its nuclear blasts.

DARHT tests allow weapons designers to X-ray a mock nuclear weapon during the early stages of that blast, to compare the weapon's performance to predictions made by the lab's supercomputer simulations, Funk explained. Without the explosive plutonium, there is no nuclear yield, and the blast can be contained with a big steel vessel, according to Funk.

Comment of the Week, The Winner

2009-12-06T21:32:00.005-07:00

Sad, but true. We do. I never much cared for the anonymous character assassination that has flourished on all three of the LANL blogs. I believe it says something unsavory about the people who work there.

From the Saturday COW, here is our selection for Comment of the Week:

Actually, the anti-Pedicini folks should shut their holes. At least John isn't afraid to (a) speak his mind even if the opinion is not what people want to hear and (b) he signs his name when he posts on the blog. There is a reason why LANL higher-ups want to keep him around ... he knows what he is talking about even if they don't want to hear him say it.

I respect someone who has the courage to use his own name to voice his convictions. Not so much respect for anonymous cowards.

--Doug

Comment of the Week, Saturday Edition

2009-12-05T12:28:00.008-07:00

For those of you in the LANS PASO (Public Affairs Spin Office -- Hi, Kevin!) who like to claim that this blog only reports bad news about LANS, I am happy to set the record straight with this upbeat note sent in by a reader on the Comment of the Week, Wednesday Edition post.

Good News! Your LANS team is working harder than ever to make LANL a great place to work. The future looks bright with the steady hands of our LANS executive team at the helm.

This week, Dr. Anastasio released a heart-to-heart memo to his fellow employees at "the lab". In it, he urged our world class "best and brightest" to press on and take LANL to even greater levels of achievement.

Here are just a few, small pieces of the good news that Dr. Anastasio had to say to employees:

"The bills (FY2011 funding) are good for the NNSA enterprise and good for the Laboratory."

"All of this is good news - especially when you add to it to the considerable investment being made at LANL through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), or “stimulus bill. We have received $212 million for our cleanup activities, and we have competed for and won (to date) close to $40 million in ARRA-funded work in science and technology."

"As with every year, we can’t sit back and rest on what we have. I – along with my fellow Lab directors – have been working with the Administration as they formulate the FY11 budget."

Dr. Anastasio is working very hard for LANL, but even with his hectic schedule, he has announced that he will be taking time out to have a All-Hands meeting with his employees in early January. It's clear that this is one Director who intends to get down in the trenches and stay engage with his hard working staff. You won't want to miss this upcoming meeting!

Yes, LANL is turning around and headed for greatness. Our Director and his new business-savy team from Bechtel and BWXT are all actively working overtime to make LANL a huge success. Recent survey results demonstrate that over 91 percent of the workforce is dedicated to helping LANS achieve success with its efforts. Join this incredible LANS team in their hard work that is making it all happen. Great things await us as we push forward. Onward, ever onward, people!

This is clear, indisputable evidence that LANS is on a trajectory for greatness that the history books will not forget. Posterity will remember LANS fondly for the great greatness that it brought to LANL.

--Doug

Comment of the Week, Wednesday Edition

2009-12-02T10:03:00.002-07:00

Ok, guys, here's our COW. From the Coverups Are Bad, Transparency is Good post:

It's only taken a little over a month and employees are already beginning to forget about the morale survey fiasco. This LANS mess will die a quick death. By April, it will all be forgotten as word of the FY2011 budget start to come around and employees prepare for a further dose of LANL downsizing (excuse me, I mean... "right-sizing". I'm still new at this LANS-speak thing).

To me, as a relative outsider these days (even though I still collaborate with a few of my LANL colleagues) it is fascinating to observe how well LANS is managing to maintain a public happy face regarding conditions at LANL. Keep those tweets coming, D'Ag!

Comment of the Week, Day Before Thanksgiving Edition

2009-11-25T14:45:00.003-07:00

Left earlier today on the Coverups Are Bad, Transparency is Good post:

Richardson may be unhappy about the survey results, but only because they exist and will have to be made public. History shows that he has no problem with low morale at LANL, which he single-handedly created as Energy Secretary when he raked John Browne over the coals in the wake of the Wen Ho Lee revelations.

Bill Richardson is a consummate politician, and as such will seize every opportunity to do what is best for Bill Richardson. No surprises here. Maybe he will see the poor performance of LANS as an opportunity to grab a few sound bites, publicly chastise Anastasio and LANS, and maybe even the NNSA over the morale issues they have created, and by so doing generate a few favorable vibes for himself.

Or, more likely, he will just continue to toe the party line that "NNSA is doing a terrific job, and LANS is doing a terrific job; costs are down, productivity is up, and everybody is just thrilled to be working at LANL now that the troublesome UC has been kicked out."

--Doug

Happy Thanksgiving, Don't Drink the Water

2009-11-25T12:11:00.006-07:00

From our friends over at the Santa Fe Reeper (sfreeper.com):

The details change, but the story never does.

The latest Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) brouhaha unfolded yesterday, when the New Mexico Environment Department slammed the lab with a hefty $960,000 penalty for failing to properly monitor radioactive pollutants in nearby watersheds. This time, it’s particularly scary: the groundwater in question provides drinking water for Los Alamos County, White Rock and the lab itself—“and it may well be the same aquifer that’s connected to the Buckman well field,” the environment department’s hazardous waste bureau chief, James Bearzi, says. Without proper monitoring, Bearzi worries the lab’s cleanup of Material Disposal Area G, its only active (and unlined!) waste disposal site, due to be finished by 2015, may do little to deal with the radioactive contaminants leaching into New Mexico’s precious water resources.

LANL, of course, sees things differently. [...]

See the full story here.

BTW: Has anybody seen the actual LANL morale survey results yet? We're ready to do the rollout, just waiting on our copy...

Coverups Are Bad, Transparency is Good

2009-11-17T17:29:00.010-07:00

I've been pretty busy in my LAL (Life After LANL), and wasn't going to do any posts this week, but a comment on the Lab executive team starts Employee Survey results rollout post made me change my mind.

Here's the comment, posted at 5:22pm today:

11/17/09 2:54 PM wrote ..."5 month staged rollout my ass. LANS is going to bury the survey results."

Bingo.

Someone needs to spill the results to the real blog (this one) that actually shares information instead of hiding it.

I tend to agree with our COW contributor: attempting to bury the survey results is lame, and I suspect you all know my orientation regarding lame management decisions.

That's right: override them.

So, I second 5:22's request -- if someone has access to the actual, non-LANS-doctored employee survey results, please send them to either Frank or me. We won't wait 5 months before doing a rollout.

Frank: pinkyandthebrain.acmelabs@gmail.com
Me: lanlblog@parrot-farm.net

Lab executive team starts Employee Survey results rollout

2009-11-17T06:05:00.003-07:00

Cascading results helps ensure action

The results of the Lab's 2009 Employee Engagement Survey are in, and the sharing begins today. Nearly half of the 9,378 employees who were invited to complete the survey took part and provided Lab leadership with valuable feedback on a range of items, from security, communication, and safety to management, leadership, diversity, ethics, and job satisfaction.

First up to hear about the institutional results is the Laboratory's executive team (director, principal associate directors, and associate directors), who will be briefed today and begin action-planning discussions focused on addressing concerns identified in the survey.

Later, as part of the survey results rollout, most employees will hear about the results and subsequent action planning in discussions with their organizational managers.

Here's how the rollout will work. The executive team is briefed first and begins action-planning discussions. Next are division-level leaders, who will receive their briefings in early December and follow an action-planning process similar to that used by the executive team. The cascade will continue through January and February as division-level leaders go through the process with their respective management teams and employees, focusing on organization-specific survey results.

In March, after the cascading is complete, all Lab leaders will convene to discuss what has been done so far and continue working together on issues raised in the survey.

Why not share the results with everyone at the same time? To ensure that the results of the survey are understood and owned by all levels of leadership at the Lab and that subsequent action is taken on these results, senior management opted to cascade the information level by level by means of a process that includes discussion and action planning. This decision was influenced by the survey's lowest-ranked item: "I believe that action will be taken on the results of this survey." Only 17 percent of the 4,313 employees responding to this item indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Although this statement was the lowest-rated item in the survey, employees did feel more positively about other issues, such as job satisfaction, safety and security, and compensation. For example, the following statements were rated among the top survey items:

"I am committed to the success of the laboratory" (91 percent of respondents marked "agreed/strongly agreed"),
"I know the proper channels for reporting concerns about security (94 percent of respondents marked "agreed/strongly agreed")
"I am satisfied with my overall compensation, including benefits" (62 percent of respondents marked "agreed/strongly agree")

Watch for more information on the Employee Engagement Survey results and subsequent action planning as the rollout continues.

Is this ordinary spin or a graveyard spiral? Brief your executive team today. You know - the ones who don't read this blog (wink).

Comment of the Weak Minded

2009-11-16T08:35:00.001-07:00

With apologies to Doug for stealing some of his thunder, here is my version of COW. It comes from last Monday's Quote of the Day post.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see some informed discussion here on this topic, thanks to prior posters.

On a related note, has anyone else see the quarterly "newsletters" that Roger Logan sends out (and from which the opening quote in this article was taken). Logan's notes are very-nearly incoherent. His rants make even the loopy posts here seem downright profound.
11/11/09 8:25 PM

Roger sent me the newsletter from which the quote was taken. I didn't have any trouble comprehending it. I think he is not only correct but also quite funny. So how about it 8:25 PM, can you explain to our readers where Roger is wrong? If you can I will thank you.

Anyone who hasn't seen this newsletter can view it here.

2009-11-15T08:43:00.004-07:00

Little to Show for $433 MM Infosec Investment

GAO: Security Weaknesses at Los Alamos Lab's Classified Network

November 13, 2009 - Eric Chabrow, Managing Editor - GovInfoSecurity.com

Los Alamos National Laboratory has spent $433 million to secure its classified computer network between fiscal years 2001 and 2008, according to a report issued Friday by the Government Accountability Office, yet significant weaknesses remain in safeguarding the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information stored on and transmitted over its classified computer network.

The audit, requested by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, cites Los Alamos' management as saying funding for its core classified cybersecurity program has been inadequate for implementing an effective program during fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

"LANL's security plans and test plans were neither comprehensive nor detailed enough to identify certain critical weaknesses on the classified network," the GAO said in its 39-page report.

The Energy Department-run laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M., also known as LANL, is among the world's largest science and technology institutions that conduct multidisciplinary research for fields such as national security, outer space, renewable energy, medicine, nanotechnology and supercomputing. Along with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LANL is one of two labs in the United States where classified work designing nuclear weapons takes place.

GAO identified several critical areas where vulnerabilities surfaced, including uniquely identifying and authenticating the identity of users, authorizing user access, encrypting classified information, monitoring and auditing compliance with security policies and maintaining software configuration assurance.

A key reason for the information security weaknesses was that the laboratory had not fully implemented an information security program to ensure that controls were effectively established and maintained, the congressional auditors said.

Among the program's shortfalls identified by the GAO:

Lack of comprehensive risk assessments to ensure that appropriate controls are in place to protect against unauthorized use,
Not developing detailed implementation guidance for key control areas such as marking the classification level of information stored on the classified network,
Inadequate specialized training for users with significant security responsibilities and
Insufficiently developing and testing disaster recovery and contingency plans to mitigate the laboratory's chances of being unsuccessful at resuming normal operational standards after a service disruption.

"The laboratory's decentralized approach to information security program management has led to inconsistent implementation of policy, and although the laboratory has taken steps to address management weaknesses, its efforts may be limited because LANL has not demonstrated a consistent capacity to sustain security improvements over the long term," the GAO said.

Among GAO's recommendations: The laboratory fully implement its information security program, centralize management of the classified network and develop a sustainability plan that details how it plans to strengthen recent cybersecurity improvements over the long term.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, the Energy Department unit responsible for the safety of government nuclear sites, generally concurred with the GAO recommendations.

Comment of the Week, Tuesday Edition

2009-11-10T12:05:00.001-07:00

From our Comment of the Week, Monday Edition post, we have a new perspective on WFO at LANL:

POGO - Nov 09, 2009:

"Lifestyles of the Rich and Nuclear"

...Last week, John Fleck reported in the Albuquerque Journal that Sandia National Laboratories Director Tom Hunter makes a whopping $1.7 million per year, and that Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Director Michael Anastasio makes $800,348 per year. As Dan Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center pointed out, this means that Hunter makes four times as much as the President of the United States, and that Anastasio makes twice as much.

...UPDATE: NNSA contacted POGO to say that it reimbursed the lab directors at far less than the $684,181 cap, and provided these figures for the amounts that the Department of Energy contributes to certain lab directors salaries (with the rest coming from the private companies that share in the management of the labs): LANL's Michael Anastasio, $397,341; Lawrence Livermore National Lab's George Miller, $348,400; and Sandia's Tom Hunter, $366,119.

pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/11/lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-nuclear.html

===================

The LANS partners takes around a 2.5% cut of all outside WFO funding that comes into the lab. Since: (a) this is part of the "profit-fee" of the LLC, and (b) this "profit-fee" helps pay for Mike's salary (see "UPDATE" above), then...

...if you work at bringing in WFO funding to LANL, you are putting money directly into Mike's wallet!

Amazing, no? It would seem that this mixing of cash from WFOs over to the LLC "for-profit" pot and then directly into Mike's private bank account would generate lots of serious legal concerns about LANL's GOCO advantage when going after work from outside agencies.

Have any government lawyers looked closely into this matter? Do the outside government agencies fully realize that a small portion of their funds are being, in some manner, distributed directly to executives in the NNSA labs for their own private gain?

Quote of the Day

2009-11-10T06:47:00.003-07:00

They just can't stop, whether it's the right thing or not.

--Roger Logan, former head of Directed Stockpile Work at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, describing a U.S. nuclear complex interested in “pushing new, untested toys” such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

JASON Panel Offers Secret Nuclear Warhead Upkeep Recommendations

Monday, Nov. 9, 2009
By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- A prominent scientific panel last month delivered to the U.S. Energy Department a set of secret recommendations on the future maintenance and modernization of the nuclear arsenal, a document some experts say could significantly influence policy debates on the matter (see GSN, Sept. 24).

The JASON report comes as the Obama administration is readying its Nuclear Posture Review for release next month. The Defense Department-led assessment of U.S. nuclear strategy, forces and operations is expected to include at least a preliminary determination on how the nation should keep nuclear weapons viable for years to come (see GSN, Aug. 27).

The Energy Department's semiautonomous nuclear arm would not describe the JASON panel's classified findings. The National Nuclear Security Administration oversees the U.S. national laboratories and other facilities charged with maintaining the nuclear stockpile.

However, some of those familiar with the findings described the report as supporting ongoing efforts to extend the service lives of existing warheads, rather than replacing them with reworked designs.

The JASON group found that periodic "life-extension programs," or LEPs, remain a viable means of keeping the U.S. arsenal safe, secure and reliable, sources told Global Security Newswire.

Established in 1960, JASON is an independent advisory organization that conducts defense-related science and technology assessments for the U.S. government, mostly during annual "summer studies." The task force that conducted the study on warhead life-extension was reportedly led by nuclear engineer Marvin Adams of Texas A&M University.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and some of his top generals have argued that the existing LEP approach would not ensure that nuclear weapons would function reliably into the future. Rather, it would likely be necessary to incorporate modern features into fresh designs that would replace at least one or two warheads in today's arsenal, Gates recently said (see GSN, Aug. 18).

A draft briefing that U.S. Strategic Command circulated on Capitol Hill this summer underscored the point, asserting that "confidence in [the] reliability of [the] aging stockpile is decreasing."

"Today's requirements can't be fully implemented in current weapons," states the document, drafted by the military organization with combat responsibility for nuclear arms. "Most lack [the] physical space needed to add required reliability, safety and security features."

In 2008, Congress refused to fund the Bush administration's Reliable Replacement Warhead effort for the second year in a row, citing concerns about how it fit into the overall U.S. nuclear weapon strategy. President Barack Obama did not include funding for the program in his fiscal 2010 budget.

Nonproliferation advocates have warned that building a new U.S. warhead could undermine Washington's efforts to foster international support for curbing known or suspected nuclear-weapon programs in nations such as North Korea and Iran.

The JASON report should give nonproliferation proponents a political shot in the arm, according to some observers. The group was said to find that replacing existing warheads in the U.S. stockpile with new designs to be unnecessary at this time.

Instead, a combination of weapon-component refurbishment and the reuse of tested designs should suffice in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, according to those familiar with the panel's conclusions. The United States has observed a moratorium on underground tests since the early 1990s.

"We believe that the report finds that current [life-extension] programs are working extremely well," said one nuclear weapons analyst who asked not to be named, citing the sensitivity of discussing a secret report. "There's no need for any dramatic changes in the programs or indeed a need to produce a new-design warhead."

"It seems that the JASON report has knocked the legs out from under the argument that building new warheads is technically preferable to refurbishing the old ones," said another expert, Jeffrey Lewis, who heads the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "I would be surprised if the administration didn't put aside the issue of new warheads for the time being."

The top Democrat and Republican on a key House subcommittee first requested the JASON study in February 2008.

"A fuller understanding of the risks, uncertainties and challenges associated with the LEPs will enable a more robust comparison between the current program and any proposed alternatives, including the RRW proposal," then-Representatives Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Terry Everett (R-Ala.) wrote in a letter to NNSA chief Thomas D'Agostino.

The former lawmakers said the new external review should be "analogous" to the JASONs' 2007 assessment of the RRW program, which cast doubt on the ability to certify proposed replacement warheads in the absence of explosive testing (see GSN, Oct. 5, 2007).

D'Agostino agreed in March 2008 to launch the JASON review of the life-extension approach. The House Armed Services Committee two months later elaborated on the Tauscher-Everett request in its report on the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill.

"The JASON review should encompass a broad range of options, including some not included in previous LEPs," the committee report stated.

The panel also encouraged D'Agostino to undertake an NNSA "assessment of the expected technical and financial costs and benefits of expanding the scope of life extension programs, to include reuse of legacy primary and secondary [nuclear-weapon] components."

Current LEP efforts are focused on extending the service lives of the Air Force's B-61 bomb warhead and the W-76 warhead used on the Navy Trident D-5 missile. Thus far, such life-extension initiatives have mainly overhauled or replaced corroded metal parts and other aging weapons components.

An NNSA spokeswoman, Jennifer Wagner, said last Thursday that agency officials were reviewing the final JASON report, which was expected to "provide an analysis of certification challenges for various future nuclear weapons life-extension options."

"When that review is complete, a copy will be provided to the new chairman and ranking member of the House [Armed Services] Subcommittee on Strategic Forces," she told GSN. "We expect the final report to be ready to be delivered shortly."

Representative Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) chairs the strategic forces panel, and Representative Michael Turner (Ohio) is its top Republican.

Wagner declined to describe her agency's reaction to the JASON findings, saying the issue remained under review. She also left unclear whether an unclassified version of the JASON report would be released, as was the case with the panel's 2007 report on replacement-warhead issues.

Observers said the scientific panel has called into question past NNSA and national laboratory statements that, over time, confidence in the existing stockpile would erode as life-extension programs slightly alter the designs of warheads that were tested prior to the onset of the moratorium.

"The concern that NNSA and the labs have expressed about drifting away from tested designs through repeated [life-extension programs] is overblown because LEPs only happen every 20 to 30 years," said the weapons analyst who asked not to be identified.

"Today's NNSA and [the Los Alamos and Livermore national laboratories] have shown us that they can't resist ... pushing new, untested toys" such as replacement warheads, said Roger Logan, who formerly led Directed Stockpile Work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

"They just can't stop, whether it's the right thing or not," Logan wrote in a recent essay on warhead-certification issues.

If the new JASON report insists that the LEP approach is sufficient for maintaining a safe, secure and reliable stockpile, it could prove more difficult for Gates and others to prevail in arguing that a warhead-replacement effort is the more prudent approach, according to one nuclear-weapons expert.

"The JASONs are the country's pre-eminent, independent scientific advisory body," said Stephen Young, a senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Their findings and recommendations should be weighed heavily as the Obama administration conducts its Nuclear Posture Review and makes plans to sustain the U.S. arsenal."

One Capitol Hill staffer said, though, that the JASON report would not necessarily be the final word on the matter.

"It will be a data point" in the debate, said the senior Senate aide, but other experts might draw different conclusions from the same set of facts about how the arsenal is faring in the absence of underground tests.

What might be most likely to evolve out of the JASON findings is a warhead life-extension approach that incorporates at least a few modern components to replace aging parts or materials that prove particularly challenging to refurbish or remanufacture, several observers said.

One example might be an effort to find an acceptable substitute for "Fogbank," -- a highly toxic, Cold War-era material, used between the warhead's two explosive stages, that has been difficult to remanufacture -- in extending the life of the Navy's W-76 warhead, said Hans Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project (see GSN, May 29).

In his widely read blog, ArmsControlWonk.com, Lewis has dubbed the anticipated conglomeration of selected RRW features with more traditional life-extension approaches the "FrankenLEP" (see GSN, Sept. 12, 2008).

Comment of the Week, Monday Edition

2009-11-09T20:11:00.002-07:00

From one, or the other of our current top posts:

LANS has the plan for making LANL grand!

Mike is "The Man" who carries out the plan!

Staff are his fans who give "The Man" a hand!

Strike up the band as LANL says... "I CAN!"

We're #1, the best lab in the land!

COW, Honorable Mention

2009-11-08T12:06:00.007-07:00

This one came in right after I had posted this week's COW. Also from the For the Love of Sex and Money post:

How come I don't see any of this embarrassing salary info posted on the new LANS blog?

Comment of the Week

2009-11-08T10:28:00.003-07:00

A while ago when Frank asked me if I would help him run his current instantiation of the LTRS blog, I initially said "Hell No!" When he asked again later I basically repeated the previous answer. But then I began to think about it, and I realized that I was still interested in the changes that were going on at LANL, even though I no longer work there. After all, I grew up in Los Alamos and worked at the lab for 20 years.

So I finally agreed to do this Comment of the Week feature. I saw reviewing the hundreds of comments posted here each week as an opportunity to track the impact of all the changes being imposed at LANL. It's a bit of a masochistic process, given the frequent illiterate, virulent, and sometimes just plain mean-spirited "contributions", but reading them all does provide a general insight into what the environment is like at LANL these days.

This week's COW highlights one of the more significant changes at LANL that I've observed since NNSA and LANS took over: a much diminished level of respect that is constantly being demonstrated by DOE, the NNSA, and LANL management towards lab employees. Our COW below is the last in a series of comments on the For the Love of Sex and Money post, in which drug testing at LANL is being discussed. I believe the point is well made that NNSA and LANS appear to have gone out of their way to implement a drug testing program that was designed to humiliate, as well as screen for drugs.

"Are you saying scientists don't use drugs? Does having a PhD make you immune from making a bad decision? Please enlighten me. "

1. Are you saying scientists don't use drugs?
There is nothing in 11/7/09 3:01 PM that would state this, either explicitly or implicitly. Please reread it again.

If you'd like to ask a relevant question, it perhaps should be: Which of the recent highly publicized safety or security incidents were caused by scientists using drugs? Answer: None.

Next reasonable question would've been: If a scientist or engineer is using and it interferes with his or her job performance, what do we do? Answer: Test whenever you have probable cause.

Finally, another good question to ask is this: What's the downside of instituting random, blanket pee tests for everybody? The answer: It makes already unhappy people feel abused and humiliated and gives all the more reasons for the best of them to leave.

Calling people in the middle of their workday and demanding that they drop everything and rush to the peemobil to urinate in a cup on queue (remember, without any probable cause whatsoever) is degrading and demeaning. It makes you feel like a piece of meat, a sheep, and certainly not an respected individual in a respectable organization. I personally know two people for whom the pee tests were the last straw before leaving the lab.

No other scientific institution in the country treats its scientists worse than LANL at this moment. If most of the A and B people leave the lab, the long-term damage to the national security will far outweigh whatever you may hope to achieve with your pee tests.

2. Does having a PhD make you immune from making a bad decision?
No, it does not. Proof by explicit counterexample: Mike Anastasio and Terry Wallace both have PhDs. Yet, both are responsible for countless bad decisions.

3. Please enlighten me.
This appears to be a tall order.

For the Love of Sex and Money

2009-11-05T15:00:00.000-07:00

Ok, I just threw the "Sex" part in to be gratuitous. Here's a story of local interest from our friends over at the Santa Fe Reeper (sfreeper.com):

Excerpt:

Corporate greed, or top-secret-special meritocracy? Nuclear Watch of New Mexico has uncovered a somewhat astounding little figure: Michael Anastasio, the director of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), earns $800,348 a year—almost twice as much as US President Barack Obama (who makes $400,000, with a $50K cushion for “expenses”). The proof is here, on one of the federal government’s “transparency pages” aimed at helping hungry reporters track down how stimulus money (of which LANL has received over $200 million in government contracts) is spent.

See the rest of the story here.

Monkey see...

2009-11-04T16:29:00.009-07:00

Our COW this week addresses the sincerest form of flattery. From the "If it wasn't for bad luck, wouldn't have no luck at all." post:

It's informative to know that the LLNS management out in California has started a LLNL Sponsored Employee Blog at the exact same time that LANS decided to form one. No coincidence. A couple to things to note. It's pretty obvious that this Blog and the Livermore Blog are a real craw in LLNS, LANS, and NNSA managements shorts. Also, lets give LANS, LLNS, and NNSA management a lot of credit for making their first and really tough decision: Let's make our own Blog. It had to have been a PBI.

"If it wasn't for bad luck, wouldn't have no luck at all."

2009-11-01T08:20:00.001-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-radiation-newmexico1-2009nov01,0,6423820.story

How Soon We Forget

2009-10-30T13:00:00.001-06:00

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 151

Designates a national day of remembrance on October 30, 2009, for nuclear weapons program workers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 14, 2009

Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. REID, Mr. CORKER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following resolution ; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

May 20, 2009

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to
RESOLUTION

Designates a national day of remembrance on October 30, 2009, for nuclear weapons program workers.

Whereas hundreds of thousands of men and women have served this Nation in building its nuclear defense since World War II;

Whereas these dedicated American workers paid a high price for their service and have developed disabling or fatal illnesses as a result of exposure to beryllium, ionizing radiation, toxic substances, and other hazards that are unique to the production and testing of nuclear weapons;

Whereas these workers were put at individual risk without their knowledge and consent in order to develop a nuclear weapons program for the benefit of all American citizens; and

Whereas these patriotic men and women deserve to be recognized for their contribution, service, and sacrifice towards the defense of our great Nation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate --
designates October 30, 2009, as a national day of remembrance for American nuclear weapons program workers and uranium miners, millers, and haulers; and
encourages the people of the United States to support and participate in appropriate ceremonies, programs, and other activities to commemorate October 30, 2009, as a national day of remembrance for past and present workers in America's nuclear weapons program.

The local celebration will be held tomorrow at Fuller Lodge. It is free and open to the public. Celebrations will also be held all across the country. I will be attending the one at SRS.

A personal note: I am thankful to every single nuclear weapons program worker for their accomplishments and, too often, for their sacrifices. The world would be a very different place without you.

UPDATE: The house just passed a similar resolution yesterday. Click here to view H. Res. 790.

Comment of the Week

2009-10-29T06:59:00.003-06:00

Four comments share the honors this week. The theme: Shut 'R Down. It will never happen, of course, but that doesn't seem to keep folks from talking about it.

From the Study finds quake risk at Los Alamos post:

One:

I've been following this blog for a while and, although I believe that the lab employees are a group of highly educated, well paid individuals, I rarely see what I would call thoughtful discussions, perhaps related to the laboratory goals. It brings to mind some of the reports by Shockley, famous for his discovery of the transistor and infamous for his writings on heredity and race.

There was a period between fame and infamy where he wrote about the degeneration of the civil service labs and how to revive those labs.

While LANL is not a civil service laboratory, his comments ere relevant. My understanding is that LANL scientists are not, in general, funded through open competition, leaving the place nearly identical to the civil service but with, I understand, much higher salaries.

From most of the comments on the blog, a student might describe the place as dormant or, at the worst, degenerated. Do any of the contributors have a suggestion that could at least point to the direction of regeneration?

Two:

Yes indeed, 2:05. I've given the subject a great deal of thought, based in part on my 22 years of employment in that non-competitive, overly compensated environment you describe. Based also in part from my experiences working outside of LANL in truly competitive environments.

I believe that LANL is so damaged by 65 years of ingrained, incestuous relationships with DOE and a few other government funding agencies that it cannot be repaired, or "regenerated". LANL management after Harold Agnew has been generally atrocious, and shows every sign of remaining that way.

The new for-profit LANL contract so neatly prepared for us by DOE and the NNSA has, to no one's great surprise, accelerated the rate of decline in management and staff quality at Los Alamos.

The only solution that I believe has any chance of producing a respected DOE science laboratory in place of the current LANL is to shut Los Alamos down. Completely. And then start new somewhere else, paying careful attention to avoid all of the mistakes that current and past managers have made and continue to make. I won't point out what those mistakes are -- you can read all about them here on this blog and its predecessor blogs.

Three:

To whoever wrote "The only solution that I believe has any chance of producing a respected DOE science laboratory in place of the current LANL is to shut Los Alamos down. Completely. And then start new somewhere else, paying careful attention to avoid all of the mistakes that current and past managers have made and continue to make."

You missed several minor points.

1) The land and buildings at LANL would cost many tens of billions to replace. Where would that money come from? No one would buy the existing LANL facilities in such a remote location (unlike Livermore).

2) Decommissioning LANL would cost many billions more.

3) How could it be possible for the same (mis)managers at NNSA who have made so many bad decisions (like hiring LANS) to create a new mistake-free organization, especially at a time when they would be building a new ~100 Billion dollar laboratory? That's nutty thinking.

4) Who would sign up to work for NNSA at your proposed new site knowing that NNSA just might make the same (bad) decision to close this new site and destroy the lives and careers of everyone who works there? Do you think top-notch scientists, engineers, technicians, and managers are that stupid?

Get a firm grip on on your head... now... pull it out. Now get a grip on the real world dude.

2:25 PM is right, the way to start fixing LANL is for NNSA to fire LANS (Bechtel).

Four:

6:27,

You really don't see the picture. I'll try to help you out:

1. NNSA is part of the problem. The suggestion was to replace the current LANL with a new DOE lab. NNSA would play no part.

2. LANL's current budget is about $2 billion per year. With that amount of funding, a pretty spiffy new DOE lab could be built. Staffing for the new lab would in no way resemble LANL's current management top-heavy, overhead-heavy work force.

3. Bulldoze what's left of the old LANL. If they can shut down RFP, they can shut down LANL.

4. ORNL, PNNL, and NREL are proof that it is possible for DOE to sponsor healthy, respected (at least as compared to LANL) science laboratories.

Study finds quake risk at Los Alamos

2009-10-28T11:14:00.004-06:00

Another week, another story about LANL, this time in the LA Times.

2009-10-27T12:21:00.003-06:00

Defense Safety Board Strongly Criticizes Seismic Safety at Los Alamos Plutonium Facility

For immediate release 10/27/09
Contact: Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group, 505-265-1200 www.lasg.org

In an unusually strong recommendation (pdf), the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) has strongly criticized the state of seismic safety at Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) main plutonium facility, Building PF-4 in Technical Area (TA)-55.

This is only the second official recommendation on any subject from the Board this year.

Due to “the severity of the problems” at PF-4, the Board requires quarterly responses over the next 12 months and suggests that if necessary Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu act under Atomic Energy Act to promptly implement short- as well as long-term remedies.

The Board finds that the mitigated (not: unmitigated) consequences off site of a seismic event and subsequent fire at PF-4 are more than 100 times the applicable DOE evaluation guideline for offsite whole-body radiation, which is 25 rem over a period of a few hours. These are NNSA modeling results.

Like most official Board communications, this one – at just 2½ pages – is a model of concision and clarity. I will not attempt to summarize its main points here but rather urge all interested parties to read it carefully.

An acute dose of the predicted magnitude (2,500 rem) would be fatal within a few days at most.

Predicted doses would be less at downwind population centers such as the village of White Rock, the town of Los Alamos, and elsewhere. Significant plutonium deposition, creating longer-term risks and incurring cleanup costs, may extend much farther downwind under some conditions.

The postulated accident would create higher doses than this to any exposed individuals on the LANL site who were exposed downwind. Prompt evacuation of these areas would be essential. Downwind LANL facilities would be contaminated and require extensive cleanup. This might not be economical, especially if there were also structural or other earthquake damage, which is likely. LANL, in other words, could be shut down for a long time and might not be worth rebuilding.

The inadequacy of the safety situation at PF-4 in general, and its seismic safety in particular, have long been a concern of this organization and we have brought up this issue in meetings with the Board in Washington, DC and in Los Alamos on multiple occasions in the past three years.

As the Board’s Recommendation notes, the present situation has been a long time in development.

The Board’s Recommendation does not mention that PF-4, along with other LANL nuclear facilities, has been operating under a so-called “Justification for Continued Operation” (JCO), which is a memorandum NNSA writes to itself explaining why it does not need for follow federal nuclear safety regulations – in LANL’s case seismic safety regulations. NNSA recently granted itself an extension to its JCO.

The resolution of seismic safety issues at PF-4 is almost completely unrelated to the planned Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Nuclear Facility. There is no known opposition to the continued safe operation of PF-4 as a plutonium facility under all stockpile management scenarios. A construction project called the “TA-55 Reinvestment Project” (NNSA Project 08-D-804) is a catch-all for the larger planned capital renewal projects at PF-4.

The Manager of the Los Alamos Site Office (LASO), Donald Winchell, who has with his staff been responsible for development and maintenance of the seismic safety response at PF-4, said in August that the Board “may have outlived its usefulness to the country.”

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board “may have outlived its usefulness to the country,” the National Nuclear Security Administration’s top official at Los Alamos National Laboratory told NW&M Monitor earlier this month. Though NNSA Los Alamos Site Office Manager Donald Winchell later added that he does believe the Board will continue to play an important role in regulating [sic – DNFSB advises, not regulates] the NNSA, his comments illustrate the growing sense at NNSA and the Department of Energy as a whole that the Board has pushed the agency toward expensive changes and a “risk averse” culture—a fact that has led Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to take a hard look at streamlining oversight and re-evaluating DOE’s relationship to the Board. “What’s their role? They have no responsibility in this game other than to sit back and tell us what we’re doing wrong,” he said. (Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor, 8/31/09)

Study Group Director Mello: “None of the serious problems that have coalesced into yesterday’s strong recommendation are new. The Board has been, it seems to me, the soul of patience in regard to PF-4. In our judgment the Board has never, and is not in this case, pushing NNSA toward unnecessary expenses and an unnecessarily “risk-averse” culture. The Board would like LANL to meet the same standards that are required in the civilian nuclear power industry, standards which are usually met at other DOE sites.

“Operations at LANL’s plutonium facility do not now, and may have never, met federal standards. For many years this facility’s operations have been supported by a scrim of variances and allowances, not actual compliance with DOE’s regulations.

“The Board is rejecting what might be called the ‘heroic’ mode of operation which characterized the nuclear weapons complex during the Cold War. Make no mistake: that mode is still the normative condition assumed by many Cold War managers. Many nuclear hawks want it back.

“Congress created the Safety Board to make sure that doesn’t happen. Thousands of people were sickened fighting the Cold War at these facilities and many workers died, as did an unknown large number of down-winders. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on cleanup. A seismic-generated fire at TA-55 – by no means the only possible very bad unplanned event at LANL, as DOE well knows – could have permanent consequences for thousands of people, especially in Los Alamos County but also in Santa Fe County. The Board is acting with the highest professionalism to fulfill its legal mandate to prevent such a catastrophe.”

“Whether NNSA wants to or not, the agency needs to dip into current operating funds, which are more than ample, to fix up PF-4. As I believe most if not all parties now realize, there is no need for active stockpile pit production, so the time is certainly ripe.”

[Download DNFSB Recommendation 2009-2 here.]

When it rains, it pours

2009-10-23T17:09:00.004-06:00

A blog reader points out another article about LANL in the NYT today:

We're in the NY Times again this evening, about cleaning up TA-21:

New York Times Article (click here).

Carefully Cleaning Up the Garbage at Los Alamos

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — No one knows for sure what is buried in the Manhattan Project-era dump here. At the very least, there is probably a truck down there that was contaminated in 1945 at the Trinity test site, where the world’s first nuclear explosion seared the sky and melted the desert sand 200 miles south of here during World War II.

LANL, the FBI, Espionage, and the New York Times

2009-10-22T09:33:00.004-06:00

Fuchs, Wen Ho Lee, The "missing" CREM, hot Mustangs, hot gold, and now P. Leonardo Mascheroni.

Once again LANL finds itself featured in the New York Times. The one bit of good advice former Director G. Peter Nanos gave us was, "Don't do anything that will put you on the front page of the New York Times."

Oops.

--Doug

Update: See also Carol Clark's story about Mascheroni from the LA Monitor.

Two Suggestions

2009-10-18T18:53:00.003-06:00

Two of our loyal blog readers have asked me to share these suggestions with other readers. The first is a survey being taken by POGO on the federal government's use of private contractors. The second is a request for comments on a proposal to establish a Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) in the nuclear weapons complex.

Do Private Contractors Serve The Public Interest?
October 13, 2009

POGO Survey to Provide a More Complete Outsourcing Picture

Private contractors can help government achieve public purposes, but ensuring that the public interest is protected requires clear standards, adequate information and oversight. Today, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) launched a web-based survey designed to examine the federal government’s policies and practices in using private sector contractors to perform services. POGO will solicit responses from federal government and contractor employees to help determine the extent to which the government’s service contracts conform to regulatory standards and are achieving the goals for using private contractors instead of government employees.

The reasons most commonly invoked by the government for outsourcing services include acquiring hard-to-find skills, saving money, and augmenting the federal workforce on a temporary or emergency basis. However, information available from the government about service contracts and the contractor workforce make it difficult to determine whether those goals are being achieved.

According to Danielle Brian, POGO’s executive director, “contracting has its place, but good management demands that it be used only when it is cost effective and achieves public goals. Each year, the federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on service contracts. Unfortunately, it is unable to ensure that work performed by contractors is as good as work performed by government employees; is in fact cost effective; and protects against fraud, waste, abuse, and unethical conduct. Furthermore, it is unclear whether adequate controls are in place to ensure that contractors are not performing work that is ‘inherently governmental.’ POGO hopes this survey will provide a more comprehensive picture of the government’s outsourcing efforts.”

POGO’s survey is organized into several sections. Respondents will be prompted to answer only the section that pertains to their particular job skills and/or work experience. Persons with experience on federal service contracts are invited to respond to POGO’s survey, which is posted on the Web at www.pogo.org. We will publish the results of the survey next year.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

# # #

Comment on Rulemaking - Safety Conscious Work Environment/DOE

Tom Carpenter, HanfordChallenge.org

Submit Your Public Comment on Protecting Nuclear Whistleblowers at DOE

Deadline: Dec 15, 2009

Protecting freedom of speech for workers when it comes to raising safety, health and environmental concerns has long been a concern at the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities.

Employees are the first line of defense for safe and effective operation of the facility, including the efforts to remediate the long-lasting and deadly legacy of plutonium production.

The U.S. Department of Energy has requested comment on a proposed rule submitted by Hanford Challenge to establish a Safety Conscious Work Environment. This is a formal program adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure that employees are free to raise concerns internally without fear of reprisal. Failure to maintain such an atmosphere on the part of an NRC licensee can result in fines and a suspension of the operating license. The NRC audits commercial nuclear facilities and takes action if it finds that a nuclear operator has a “chilled working environment” that discourages the raising of issues.

The nuclear weapons complex has a long and inglorious history of reprisals against workers who raised concerns. A recent example was the $7 million jury verdict against Hanford contractor Fluor Federal Services after 11 pipefitters filed complaints following their terminations for refusing to install a questionable valve in a radioactive waste piping system.

A Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) is defined as an environment in which employees are encouraged to raise concerns, where concerns are promptly reviewed, given the proper priority based on their safety significance, and appropriately resolved with timely feedback to employees. Attributes of a SCWE include (1) a management attitude that promotes employee involvement and confidence in raising and resolving concerns; (2) a clearly communicated management policy where safety has utmost priority, overriding the demands of production and project schedules; (3) a strong, independent quality assurance organization and program; (4) a training program that encourages a positive attitude toward safety; and (5) a safety ethic at all levels characterized by an inherently questioning attitude, attention to detail, prevention of complacency, commitment to excellence, and accountability in safety matters.

“The public relies on employees to come forward with issues that might affect human health and safety, the environment, and efficient use of government resources. Such employees deserve strong and effective protections against reprisal, and the government should make sure that there is free-flow of information from workers so that problems are addressed at an early stage and effectively,” states Tom Carpenter, Executive Director of Hanford Challenge.

Public comment is now being taken by the DOE. We urge all who believe in protecting workplace free speech and protecting safety and health to comment on this Rule by DECEMBER 15, 2009.

For a copy of the Rulemaking Petition, check the Federal Register website: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-24929.htm

Sexual Harassment "Cliff's Notes"

2009-10-14T13:09:00.004-06:00

Hi Pinky,
This email was making the rounds Friday. My guess is that Rich Marquez asked for this cheat sheet to be developed for his own use.
-Anonymous

Sexual harassment prevention training is required for all LANS employees. Employees and managers who have not yet taken the initial online training need to do so by October 31. (Contractors do not need to take this training.)

Attached above are “cliff notes” [click to view] to assist you when you are taking the quiz at the end of the training. Please note this training is taking people approximately 2 hours and the quiz pass rate on the first attempt is extremely low. (Print the “cliff notes/cheat sheet” before taking the quiz they may help you pass on the first attempt.)

Anonymous,
Could you forward the Cliff's Notes for ethics training too?
Thanks,
Frank (aka Pinky)

Comment of the Week, Monday Edition

2009-10-12T12:03:00.001-06:00

A special edition of COW, with the theme of LANL: Then versus Now, as portrayed by these two recent comments.

Click to enlarge

Then:

The good ol' days. No questions asked back then. We got money by the tanker full, and we didn't have to account for none of it! White male butt-heads and cowboys in charge (as should be). No going-Rogue pussies tolerated in our midst (as should be). The cover of UC to give us an air of academic odeur. Placed on pedestals by everyone who knew better. Legends in our own minds of course. We were truly the best and brightest and damn well knew it! Boy oh boy, those WERE the good ol' days.

Now:

I don't know of a single person under 30 who thinks LANS is a great place to work. As a group, they don't have TCP1, and can carry their 401k anywhere they want to go in the future. They seem to take the collective attitude that if this place doesn't improve, they can just move on down the road without much trouble. Right now, many of them are doing just that along with many other LANS employees. Los Alamos has become a sort of National Laboratory puppy mill.

Comment of the Week

2009-10-11T13:12:00.003-06:00

An anonymous commenter on the Referrals post was anxiously anticipating the release of the results from the LANS Morale Survey, hoping for a large negative showing. That prompted a response from another anonymous blogger, which will be our COW for this week.

--Doug

Click to enlarge

I wouldn't bet on the feedback being overwhelmingly negative, 12:29. Think about it: only staff who have been around since before 2004 have any first-hand knowledge about how LANL used to be. Back in 2004, there were approximately 14, 000 employees at LANL. Now there are less than 8,000. In 2005 alone 3,000 staff left.

I suspect that most of today's staff at LANL are too young and ignorant to realize how fucked up LANL has become. Some of the newer staff probably even think Anastasio is doing a swell job.

A lot of institutional knowledge has been lost during the past five years, and this seems to be exactly what NNSA, DOE, and our fine New Mexico politicians wanted.

You know you're over the target when you start taking flak

2009-10-09T12:48:00.004-06:00

A comment from the $47M Released for LANL Plutonium Lab post:

You guys are full of it. LANL is world class in Plutonium research and has some of world’s best management teams in place for nuclear facility management for facilities such as CMRR. There is no better place in the complex to build this facility. The LANS management team in place to manage this facility is second to none. Please do your research before you post such dribble on this blog.

Referrals

2009-10-09T12:23:00.002-06:00

It is interesting to observe how some people were referred to this blog, like the Office of the President earlier this morning.

Or this one.

Click to enlarge

Bomb Envy

2009-10-09T07:54:00.005-06:00

There was an interesting hit on the blog this morning: Executive Office Of The President Usa.

Click to enlarge

Here's the referring link that brought them to us, a google keyword search on "don cook atomic weapons establishment":

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=don%20cook%20atomic%20weapons%20establishment&start=20&sa=N

The results returned by that search are fairly interesting, with many of the linked articles focused on reports that Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston might be designing a new bomb.

"The gates are closed at Aldermaston which seems to be gearing up to develop the next generation of nuclear weapons, despite the recent Blix WMD report that states explicitly we'd all be better off without them."

So, maybe this explains why Chu and Congress seem so willing to fund a new CMRR -- fear of falling behind the Brits in weapons design.

--Doug

2009-10-09T03:46:00.001-06:00

$47M Released for LANL Plutonium Lab

By Sue Major Holmes, The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 07, 2009

ALBUQUERQUE — The federal government has released $47 million toward a long-planned plutonium research lab at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a project Los Alamos officials say is vital but that nuclear watchdogs contend only positions the U.S. to build more nuclear weapons.

The building would replace an aging lab where scientists analyze samples of plutonium and other radioactive materials.

The current structure was built more than 50 years ago and upgraded earlier this decade at a cost of $90 million. About half of it has been shut down, largely because Los Alamos does not want to make further upgrades.

The Energy Department late last year approved a program limiting the most dangerous nuclear material to Los Alamos and four other sites, reflecting a significant decline in the number of warheads the United States maintains and an expectation of more reductions.

Greg Mello of the Albuquerque-based Los Alamos Study Group contends the National Nuclear Security Administration can maintain the safety of the nuclear arsenal even without the lab's Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building, known as CMRR.

The real impetus for the new building, he believes, is that the current one “has aged to the point it cannot house NNSA's ambitions for the future.”

Mello said CMRR would position Los Alamos to make large numbers of new plutonium pit designs — the triggers of nuclear weapons.

“We view this building as a grotesque misallocation of taxpayer money and a poke in the eye to our disarmament obligations,” he said.

Los Alamos officials say they need the replacement to tell what makes up materials. Plutonium, for example, contains impurities, requiring samples to be tested and retested.

CMRR is not just about plutonium, project manager Rick Holmes said. “My scope for this project is not to expand capabilities but to replace existing capabilities,” he said.

A host of elements for purposes ranging from biomedicine to geology need to be studied, and if Los Alamos wasn't doing pit production, CMRR would be needed for other science, Holmes said.

“The size isn't driven by numbers (of weapons) in the stockpile. ... If we want to have a scientist who understands plutonium or americium in 50 years, we have to have a place to do science,” he said.

DOE and Los Alamos officials say it would cost too much to upgrade the current metallurgy structure compared to building a smaller, safer and more efficient one. “It's substantially harder to modify an existing house than to build a new one,” Holmes said. “You always end up compromising something.”

There's no exact cost figure for CMRR, but a U.S. Senate report last year estimated it at $2.6 billion — more than five times the initial estimate of about $500,000. “As time passes, things don't get cheaper,” Holmes said.

The price tag must await a final design, which cannot be done until completion of an ongoing national nuclear posture review. The Pentagon began work in April on the report on threats and deterrent capabilities. It's due next year.

Mello said the expense of CMRR “is a commitment to a particular vision for Los Alamos National Laboratory,” one that lays the groundwork for an expanding nuclear program and increases the relative importance of producing plutonium pits over other lab programs.

Holmes said Congress decides funding priorities, adding, “Somehow we found $700 billion for the TARP program,” the official name of the stimulus package.

The just-released $47 million is part of the project's second phase. The money will continue preliminary design work and will buy equipment for CMRR labs and the laboratory portion of the project's first phase, a related $199 million office building.

Last month marked the completion of much of that first building, which includes offices for up to 350 people and 19,500 square feet of laboratory space.

Equipment is being installed and Holmes said people will move into offices in the fall of 2011 and start radiological experiments in the laboratory section in 2013.

Mello said labs in the office building more than replace what the old structure had, but Holmes said they're not sufficient for all the work Los Alamos performs.

For example, labs in the office building are allowed to have only 8.4 grams of plutonium, about a thimble's worth, for experiments. Holmes said sample preparation and materials characterization work require larger amounts, making CMRR necessary.

LANL Viking Funeral

2009-10-08T12:18:00.004-06:00

On one of the recent blog posts here someone dredged up the 2006 Albuquerque storage shed fire incident which destroyed much of Lockheed-Martin's LANL proposal material. At least one anonymous commenter was suggesting that some kind of a conspiracy was behind the event.

Click the image for a larger view

I contacted a colleague of mine who was familiar with the Lockheed LANL bid capture effort, and asked him about the storage shed fire. Here's what my colleague tells me:

Too bad it is not nearly as nefarious as everyone’s imagination is letting it become. After the award announcement, we had more than just our proposal to ship back east. In preparation for a successful transition we had procured over $1M in IT equipment to support the effort. This included something like 80 laptop computers, numerous desktops, printers, scanners, servers, routers etc. All purchased with the intent of getting it started right. Paul [Robinson] wanted to make sure that we were thoroughly prepared to execute a flawless transition. Anyway, once the decision was rendered (or the fix was in) we had to de-camp from the city. So we hired Paul Arpin Moving company to pack up our belongings into the van and ship them all back to Cherry Hill NJ. As best we can figure out, all of those new laptops and other computer equipment in boxes were too much of a temptation for the criminal element in Albuquerque. We were notified that there was a fire during the night and the van was a complete loss. When we came to inspect the damage there were no burned carcasses of laptops and a very few burnt desktops that were already out of the box, and of course the proposal that would have changed everything. We now refer to the incident as the LANL Viking Funeral.

Everyone should understand though that even with the hardcopy of the proposal burned, we had backup electronic files for everything. It was not as if someone could have set fire to our proposal and we would not have access to the records for any legal action, if we decided to go that way.

So, there you have it: Albuquerque crime, not conspiracy.

--Doug

LANS Love Fest

2009-10-07T12:48:00.003-06:00

Anonymous sent this in yesterday.

Click an image for a larger version, if you feel so compelled.

According the a LANL article posted today, thousands of people attended the LANS love fest. Do you hear, thousands!!! But on the pictures which LANS recently posted on the web, it looks more like a couple of dozen people were there at Overlook Park:

------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
Smiles dominate at Lab Family Fest 2009 (LANL Today, Oct 6, 2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thousands of happy faces tell the story

Thousands of employees and their families attended this year's Lab celebration, the Family Fest. Visitors traded smiles with Director Michael Anastasio and Deputy Director Ike Richardson, enjoyed juicy hamburgers and hot dogs served by ARAMARK employees, competed in the Lab's first-ever kickball tournament, and danced to the rockin' rhythms of the Nomads.

(NOTE: 2 JPEGS attached; Possible captions: "Mike and his boys in da' hood", and "Come git your big, fat weenies!")

A no-brainer

2009-10-06T14:07:00.005-06:00

That ubiquitous Anonymous blog reader just submitted what should be a shoo-in for the newly-announced President's Save Award.

Anonymous' suggestion:

easy. move LANL and LLNL out of the business of making nukes for profit, and back to status quo ante. We already know that it would save 1/2 billion dollars a year because we have the numbers. It would also reduce overhead (we have those numbers too). Finally, it would improve morale and as a consequence improve productivity and quality.

I estimate that direct and indirect savings would be $1B, which is ~25% of their current budget IIRC.

Kind of hard to argue against logic like that. The deadline for idea submissions is October 14. Vote early, and vote often.

--Doug

2009-10-06T07:32:00.002-06:00

Audit Report on the Department of Energy's Management of Contractor Fines, Penalties and Legal Costs

DOE/IG-0825
October 5, 2009

Why we performed this review...

The Department of Energy's (Department) contractors incur and are reimbursed for significant legal expenses each year. Thus, we initiated this audit to determine whether the Department's process for managing contractor fines, penalties and other legal costs was effective.

Background

The Department reimburses its facility contractors for millions of dollars in settlement costs and for fees paid to outside law firms for legal research, litigation and consulting activities. Because of contract reform initiatives, the Department increased contractor financial responsibility for certain legal costs. For example, fines and penalties for violations of laws and regulations, which totaled almost $12 million over the five-year period of our review, were found to be unallowable and were not reimbursed by the Department. The Department specifically considers certain other costs to be unallowable, such as those for punitive damages or in cases where contractor management officials are found to have engaged in willful misconduct or have failed to exercise prudent business judgment. Legal costs may also be disallowed if they are not properly coordinated with Department officials.

What we found...

Our audit testing revealed that the Department did not fully implement processes for managing the cost of legal services and settlements. We identified instances where payments were made for costs that, in certain cases, were potentially unallowable. Specifically, two of the four facility contractors we reviewed were permitted to claim almost $300,000 in legal costs directly associated with unallowable fines and penalties. We also identified other instances where facility contractors incurred questionable costs paid to outside legal firms. For example, some contractors paid law firms for expenses that had not been reviewed and approved as required, including first class airfare, travel expenses where no receipts were provided, and other costs normally treated as unallowable.

The Department also allowed payment to contractors for a number of unauthorized settlements and for settlements that were made without a review of the facts and circumstances surrounding alleged contractor "managerial personnel" misconduct. The term "managerial personnel" generally describes a very limited group of specifically identified senior level contractor managers. The Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation and the Department's Legal Management Requirements at 10 CFR 719, permit the Department to review these cases for cost allowability. Such action was not taken in these cases. Several responsible officials, in discussing this issue, argued that, as an alternative, the government has the option of questioning costs based on the results of subsequent audits or reviews. We concluded, however, that controls designed to prevent or detect payments that may not be allowable on a real time basis are a more effective means of reducing or eliminating such payments.

We concluded that these activities occurred because of weaknesses in controls at certain contractor locations. In particular, Federal officials at some sites had not always considered applicable regulations that prohibit payment of certain costs that are directly associated with otherwise unallowable costs. Additionally, Department officials had not: (1) required facility contractors to enforce the terms and conditions of legal Engagement Letters; (2) fully considered the circumstances of legal actions before agreeing to settlements; and, (3) conducted reviews to identify instances of "defined" senior contractor management personnel misconduct or analyze recurring lawsuits and ensure corrective actions were being taken to prevent future lawsuits for systemic problems.

Management did not agree with the need to implement all corrective actions we proposed, but did agree that some actions were necessary and proposed alternative actions in each case. Management also did not completely concur with a number of the conclusions presented in the report. We believe, however, that management's suggested alternative actions are generally responsive to our recommendations.

To view the full report, click on the following link:

http://www.ig.energy.gov/documents/IG-0825.pdf

For more information, contact judy.garland-smith@hq.doe.gov

I'm Sorry This Took So Long

2009-10-01T23:11:00.002-06:00

No, that isn't a quote from some government official. But it should be. Rather, that is an apology from me for falling so far behind in blogging. If anyone is interested I'll offer my excuses in the comments. Thank you to Doug and the readers. You made this iteration of the LANL blog much bigger than me or my issue. Many, myself included, appreciate that very much.

The topic of this post is last month's DOE IG report titled Fire Suppression and Related Services at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It is a story that has been in the news for years. This latest report was covered in the Los Alamos Monitor, the Albuquerque Journal, and the Santa Fe New Mexican. As is the way with all LANL safety problems, you can expect to see this story again. And again. And again. Here is a comment from earlier today:

I understand the TA-55 Plutonium Facility was shut down today as a result of a fire code compliance issue involving the TA-55 fire suppression system. I hear at least a 5-day shutdown. Were people sent home since the fire suppression system compliance is potentially a worker safety issue? Can anyone provide details since workers were not informed of anything? Does this fire code compliance issue impact other category 2 or 3 facilities at the Lab such as Area G?

Comment of the Week

2009-10-01T12:07:00.003-06:00

This week our COW will highlight some of the differences between LANL and ORNL. From the Saturday's UllrFest post:

Meanwhile, back at the non-profit managed ORNL, where the word "Bechtel-ization" is unknown and the motto "Shoes that GRIP!" has never been seen...

-----
Lab Director Says ORNL on the Upswing

By Frank Munger - September 28, 2009 (Knoxville News)

OAK RIDGE - Fiscal 2009 was a good year for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, with almost a 30 percent increase in science funding, and ORNL Director Thom Mason said he expects more good things in the budget for fiscal 2010, which begins in October.

On top of that, the Oak Ridge lab is receiving even more stimulus money than expected, Mason said.

"We're now up to about $310 million in Recovery Act funding, and there's still more out there in terms of things that are being competed and I think that will continue to grow some," he said.

What a difference it makes to be a DOE lab run by a non-profit organization as compared, of course, to being an NNSA lab managed by a PBI-based profit-hungry corporation.

--Doug

Saturday's UllrFest

2009-09-28T14:40:00.009-06:00

It was a perfect day: mountain biking, beer & music.

Oh, and costumes, dancing, food, and more music. Don't know how the LANS shindig went, but those of us who spent the day at Pajarito Ski Hill had a great day.

--Doug

Click to enlarge.

Tired of Just Moping Around, Reading the Blog?

2009-09-23T17:07:00.000-06:00

The big day approaches: UllrFest 09!

Get out of the house this Saturday for UllrFest 09 up on Pajarito Mountain. There will be beer, mountain biking, and music. My friends the Hop Hedz will be playing -- they have a great sound. I may even sit in with them for a set.

--Doug

Click to enlarge

Gone, But Not Forgotten

2009-09-22T16:41:00.003-06:00

By request, this comment gets its own post.

--Doug

From the DOE Is Searching For LANL's Budget post:

"The so called "A" students are the reason LANL and the US are in so much trouble. They think they are so smart that the rules do not apply to them. I say to hell with them, no more Ph.ds for LANL, Wall Street or the Pentagon. If you have an "A" average as a college student you should also not be considered for a job since they will think they are so great. The D students as you idiots call them will get things done and do by the rules. The rules are there are a reason people what is so hard to understand about that? If you cannot understand than maybe you are not as smart as you seem."

Pete? Pete Nanos? Is that you, buddy? Hey, you *know* reading the blog is bad for your blood pressure. C'mon now, calm down.

There, better now? How are things at DTRA, BTW? Got all your CREM accounted for? Oh, and be careful using that laser pointer...

DOE Is Searching For LANL's Budget

2009-09-16T14:57:00.006-06:00

They found it on the blog, of course. They also appear to be looking for LANL employee salaries, and for insights into our firefighting capabilities. An interesting combination of searches. Planning a fire sale, perhaps?

--Doug

Click to Enlarge

LANS Listens?

2009-09-14T21:58:00.003-06:00

LANS survey sez....

For each question, the choices are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree.

Page 1:

1. I feel well-informed about events, decisions, and other news at the Laboratory.

2. Management cares about my concerns related to Laboratory safety.

3. Career opportunities at the Laboratory are good.

4. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of age.

5. The Laboratory is a good place to work.

6. The Laboratory rewards those who contribute most.

7. Employees are treated with respect.

8. The leadership team is working together to advance the Laboratory’s mission.

9. I have confidence in the leadership of the Laboratory.

10. Laboratory managers set good examples.

Page 2:

11. I trust what I read in Lab-wide communications (LANLtoday, Intranet, news releases, etc.)

12. I know the proper channels for reporting my concerns about safety.

13. I am encouraged to find creative solutions to new challenges.

14. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of gender.

15. Overall, I like my job.

16. I am committed to the success of the laboratory.

17. Laboratory managers/supervisors consult employees about decisions that affect them.

18. My suggestions about security would be acted upon if I expressed them to management.

19. Favoritism is not an issue in my group.

20. Upward communication is encouraged and enabled in my division.

Page 3:

21. My suggestions about employee safety would be acted upon if I expressed them to management.

22. I am held accountable for my work performance.

23. My supervisor/manager takes appropriate action when workplace concerns are raised to him/her.

24. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of race.

25. My work is challenging.

26. I plan to be working here five years from now.

27. Laboratory managers/supervisors have the authority to make decisions related to their own work groups.

28. My morale at work is good.

29. I am valued by the Laboratory.

30. Upward communication is encouraged at the Laboratory.

Page 4:

31. I am encouraged by my supervisors to report any unsecure conditions I observe.

32. I am proud to tell people I work for the Laboratory.

33. The Laboratory supports diversity in the work environment.

34. My work is rewarding.

35. I have a good understanding of the scope and responsibilities of my job.

36. Laboratory managers/supervisors positively motivate others to achieve goals.

37. The morale of my co-workers is good.

38. I believe that action will be taken on the results of this survey.

39. I know the proper channels for reporting my concerns about security.

40. My supervisor treats me fairly.

Page 5:

41. The Laboratory's employee population is diverse.

42. I am satisfied with my overall compensation, including benefits.

43. What do you value most about the Laboratory? (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

44. What do you consider to be the most significant impediment(s) to getting work done at the Laboratory? (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

45. I receive the most useful information about the Laboratory from... (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

Mike Anastasio's claim that "morale at LANL is good" will now be put to the test. We'll also soon know if Kevin Roark is correct with his claim that this blog is the platform of only a few employees at the lab who are unhappy with LANS/Bechtel management. We'll know, that is, as long as LANS doesn't hold the results of this survey from staff under the pretense of corporate "proprietary information".

You have two weeks to enter your opinions if you want to be heard. Sheeple need not apply.

-Anonymous

DOE Cares

2009-09-14T20:48:00.002-06:00

Please print and post in your workplace.

Comment of the Week

2009-09-12T10:25:00.007-06:00

At least once a week we receive a comment that could best be described as one of those foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing political rants. They usually get rejected, much to the outrage of the frustrated blogger wannabe. Lately, though, one or two of these knuckle-draggers have become marginally smart enough to at least tie their rant topic to something, albeit slightly, topical to this blog. Like the NNSA, for example. So I approved one of those gems last night, to which somebody else replied this morning with what shall be our COW for this week.

From the Comment of the Week, Thursday Evening Addition post:

"no one is paying attention"

Really?

Then where did your news article come from? Ahmedinejad-Clause? The nuke fairy?

--Doug

Leaving LANL

2009-09-08T14:46:00.002-06:00

This person asked us to post his sentiments about leaving LANL on the blog.

A letter to LANS management:

The Uncaring Director and the BeckZillions have taken over LANL. You now have one less person employed at LANL, so you are closer to your 5% reduction in FTE’S for next year.

You know who you are with your fancy clothes and fancy cars and non management skills.

You have moved here to rape and pillage the land; as soon as it’s destroyed you will move on leaving in your wake those of us that make our homes here to deal with what’s left.

I challenge our nationally elected officials, Senators Bingaman and Udall, Representatives Heinrich, Lujan, Teague and our state officials Wallace and Griego to wake up before Los Alamos National Laboratory is no longer. Come here and really talk to employees not management, find out the real truth.

I terminated (sorry according to management I had to say retired) otherwise it would affect my retirement, a play with words by management. What I really wanted to do after a Gestapo type grilling was terminate my employment and retire, as quickly as I could.

I would have like to have waited for a few more months, but management has other ideas on making life unbearable for employees. Do you think morale will get any lower? I have no doubt that they are out to make life as miserable for employees as they can, and YES it will get lower. My group leader and FLM will never know what a huge favor they did for me.

TODAY IS THE 2^ND DAY OF MY REBIRTH FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.

The clouds have lifted, the sun is shining brightly and I have no cares. Amazing how quickly the stress level dissipates, although it will take a little while longer. I actually feel like a huge weight has been lifted and I am taller. For the past 2 days my headaches have been less severe and getting better all the time. I have no urgency to my life. Take it as it comes and enjoy. I no longer wear a watch as I don’t have a schedule to keep. I am enjoying my new found life to the fullest, and doing things on my schedule.

To all the above LANS management THANK YOU! You really are the best and brightest, LOOK out for each other and wear your shoes that grip so that you will stay out it front. You really need those big fat bonus checks. A well deserved reward for killing off what was once the Crown Jewel Laboratory of the United States.

To all my friends and LANS employees leave while you still have your health, life really does get better.

Looking forward to many more days in my new found life, I don’t miss you LANS.

Anonymous

Comment of the Week, Thursday Evening Addition

2009-09-03T22:23:00.003-06:00

Re: D'Agostino's re-appointment as NNSA head:

I demand to see Tom D'Agostino's birth certificate! Dr. Chu needs to re-count the votes on this awful decision.

'Nuff said.

--Doug

Comment of the Week, Thursday Afternoon Edition

2009-09-03T12:16:00.004-06:00

This one grabbed my attention on the LTRS LANS EES (Employee Engagement Survey) post.

Here's our Thursday COW:

Few people seem willing argue against the position that LANL is much worse off now under the NNSA and the for-profit Bechtel-led corporation than it was under DOE and the non-profit contract years (excepting that brief period during the Nanos-led reign of terror, naturally).

The simple fact is that NNSA has been given free reign to do with LANL whatever they choose. The real question is why? I'm betting that military industrial lobbying is the answer. And you'll never lose a bet by following the money.

--Doug

Hippocratic Oath Overruled by Bechtel

2009-09-02T00:41:00.002-06:00

Frank,
When Bechtel/LANS took over, doctors and medical providers at Occupational Medicine treated patients to diagnose and heal.

Imported Bechtel managers would tell the medical staff that they needed to reduce the number of “recordable” injuries and were told by same staff that their duty was to their patient and to uphold the Hippocratic Oath. Those were the early days of the transition.

Now, three years later, Occupational Medicine is bringing in an OSHA trainer from Denver to “instruct” them on what makes an injury recordable. This is important because recordable injuries are a metric by which LANS is judged, and which can determine those upper management bonuses.

No longer will an employee be treated to heal and minimize pain, but only in the most minimal method so as to avoid making their injury recordable. Examples include sending employees with serious ergonomic injuries away with instructions to take prevention classes, rather than referring to physical therapy. Physical therapy, you see, is a “trigger” which would make that injury recordable and jeopardize those bonuses.

What to do? Since (some) providers at Occupational Medicine no longer have your healing as a prime motivator, here is some advice.

If you are injured at work, go ahead and report it and go to Occupational Medicine. Expect them to minimize the injury to you and send you away with ibuprofen or some other over the counter medication. You therefore do not become one of their “recordable” cases.

If you are still in pain, or have questions, see your personal health care provider, who is still working to heal you and reduce pain.

Good luck! Remember, Occupational Medicine has become an extension of LANS/Bechtel Management- your wellness is NOT their goal- only their injury/illness statistics.

-Anonymous

Anonymous,
I doubt most contractors know Occupational Medicine exists. I certainly would have gone there before the Los Alamos Medical Center. It has been frustrating having to explain to doctors that TA-55 is not the UFO landing strip in Nevada.
Frank

LTRS LANS EES (Employee Engagement Survey)

2009-08-31T12:15:00.005-06:00

Since LANS will be conducting an "Employee Engagement Survey" next month, it might be appropriate to conduct the uncensored version of this same survey here. We'll kick it off with a comment from yesterday's COW post. Here, then is the first question from the LTRS LANS EES (Employment Engagement Survey):

Question #1 on the LANS employee satisfaction survey:

How good of a job is the Director doing in leading this lab?

A) Good

B) Excellent

C) Unbelievably, Amazing, Stupendous!

C) My goodness, this man is super-human! Give him a triple bonus and mail my survey reward to the home address!

And here are a few more:

Comment of the Week, Sunday Morning Edition

2009-08-30T11:16:00.007-06:00

A brilliant image of The Future at LANL, as shared with us by a commenter on this week's normal edition of Comment of the Week:

I heard from a friend in the public affairs office that several PR folks from North Korea have been contracted to spearhead a new PR campaign for the Lab. That's why there was a North Korean contingent visiting Governor Bill Richardson recently. He's the one that came up with the idea. The idea is basically to portray Mikey as the "Supreme Director" of a new and improved "Laboratory of the new Millennium." Apparently that's going to be the new lab motto.

So beginning next year Mikey's photo will be displayed strategically across the Lab. As you cross the Los Alamos Bridge the first and last image you'll see will be Mikey's. Right now, as you read this blog, his leadership team (headed by Sir Knight Richard of the Sexual Harassment Order) is in the process of recruiting hundreds of volunteers (loyal Lab employees and spouses of course) to become part of a synchronized dance troop they want trained to perform every June 1st (anniversary of the LANS takeover). They will receive hands on instruction from experienced Olympic event dance choreographers. Dignitaries will be sitting on stands placed on in front of the National Security Building facing the open area between the Resource Library and the Otowi. That area will formally be christened next spring The Sheeple's Mall (pictured at the left).

The children of loyal Lab employees will be carrying long poles with long colored streamers tied to them, waving them back and forth in the wind as their parents dance for the Supreme Director. There will be many political dignitaries on hand to pay homage of course. Displays of mockups of every warhead design ever developed at the Laboratory (whether they worked or not) will line the mall. St. Pete will provide the keynote address of course. Imagine the cheering roar of the masses!

Well if you can’t imagine that, that’s the way my PR friend is imagining it. Sounds a little far fetched but hey, he’s a PR guy. And you know they never lie.

Comment of the Week

2009-08-28T16:01:00.003-06:00

I noticed this also, but didn't quite know how to put it into words. A commenter from the Crasher Squirrel post did so succinctly with this contribution:

LANS and NNSA seem to have launched an intense PR campaign to convince the weapon complex employees, media and Congress that they're not the total fuck-ups that they appear to be.

--Doug

TA-35

2009-08-28T10:06:00.002-06:00

DNFSB reports are only one page per week and are delayed for weeks. A reader sent this one to me, which describes some of the events at TA-35 last month.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
July 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR: T. J. Dwyer, Technical Director
FROM: B. Broderick and R.T. Davis
SUBJECT: Los Alamos Report for Week Ending July 24, 2009

Emergency Management: On Thursday, LANL conducted its annual full scale emergency exercise. The exercise simulated an explosion in the Beryllium Technology Facility foundry resulting in several worker casualties and a release of Beryllium from the facility. At one point, the exercise had to be paused for several hours when key participants including Los Alamos County Fire Department, LANL Emergency Response and LANL Emergency Management personnel were called away to deal with an actual hazardous material event, discussed below. Work has begun on an exercise after-action report that will analyze performance and identify opportunities for improvement.

Target Fabrication Facility: The event that led to the pause in the full scale exercise occurred at the Target Fabrication Facility, a radiological facility in Technical Area 35. A worker was transferring a nitric acid solution into a shipping container to prepare it for disposition when an unexpected chemical reaction occurred causing reddish fumes to begin evolving from the container. The worker became concerned that an exothermic reaction occurring inside the shipping container could cause it to fail, so he attempted to transfer the reacting solution into a more robust container. During this attempted transfer liquid began to bubble out of the container. At this point the worker left the room and prompted a facility evacuation. The facility evacuation was complicated by the evacuation alarm being out of service. Also, one individual had not been issued a facility emergency notification pager and remained unaware of the situation and inside the facility for a significant period of time.

Incident command decided to order adjacent facilities in TA-50 to shelter-in-place to protect personnel from exposure to any chemical vapors being exhausted from the Target Fabrication Facility through an unfiltered stack. Notification to shelter-in-place does not appear to have been effectively communicated to all impacted TA-50 facilities, including the WCRR repackaging facility.

Ultimately a hazardous materials team made entry into the facility and stabilized the scene. Fourteen workers, including the individual directly involved in the event were transported to Occupational Medicine where they were examined and released without restriction. The direct cause of the chemical reaction that initiated the event is still under investigation. In part due to similarities with the July 8th exothermic chemical reaction event at another TA-35 facility, the Material Science and Technology division has paused operations involving chemicals, pending reviews of work control documents and walkdowns of laboratory spaces where work with chemicals is performed (site rep weekly 7/10/09).
[...]

2009-08-28T02:06:00.002-06:00

Pentagon Vetting Could Delay Warhead Modernization Plan

By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defense Department leaders plan to submit to outside technical review their forthcoming recommendation on how to proceed with nuclear warhead modernization, a process that might delay a decision on the contentious plan until next year, according to a senior official (see GSN, Aug. 18).

Pentagon officials say they are weighing an array of modernization options as part of the congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review, a broad assessment of the nation's strategy, forces and readiness due in December.

One alternative could be to continue maintaining the existing stockpile through reuse and refurbishment, officials say. Another might be to replace aging warheads with a newly crafted design aimed at boosting the safety, security and reliability of the stockpile.

Once recommended modernization options have been narrowed down, Pentagon leaders expect to submit them for assessment by outside scientists -- a process that might well extend beyond the due date for the posture review, the defense official said in an interview yesterday. How many months of delay might be involved remains uncertain.

"It's better to understand those considerations in advance, [and] decide if you agree with them or not, rather than to have them come up after the fact," said the senior official, who declined to be identified because of political sensitivities surrounding the posture review.

"It would be preferable if it happens within the NPR" time frame, the senior official told Global Security Newswire.

However, "if the technical details aren't sorted by then," the official said, the posture review might indicate instead: "OK, here's what the basic principles are that should guide where we go in the future, and here are the next decisions that need to be taken, and the next research actions or technical analysis actions that need to be considered."

President Barack Obama's national security team remains deeply divided over how best to maintain the viability of an aging arsenal in the absence of explosive testing. The United States has implemented a moratorium on underground tests since the early 1990s.

While serving as President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates advocated building a Reliable Replacement Warhead, but Congress twice rejected funding for the effort. Lawmakers argued that an untested RRW design could actually raise doubts about nuclear-weapon reliability -- potentially harming deterrence -- and undermine Washington's efforts at thwarting nuclear proliferation around the globe.

Now serving a new president, Gates has pushed behind the scenes to revive a "replacement" approach to nuclear arms modernization. Despite growing support for warhead replacement among other Cabinet leaders, Vice President Joseph Biden in June rebuffed the idea, saying it could derail Obama's vision for reducing the role nuclear weapons play worldwide, GSN reported last week.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he opposed "rushing to produce a new generation of warheads." Once in the Oval Office, the president committed to pursuing the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. For the foreseeable future, though, the United States will "maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal," Obama said during a major address in Prague.

How the president opts to proceed with nuclear warhead modernization is "an issue of great interest -- not just in DOD and DOE -- but across the government," said the senior Pentagon official, referring to the Defense and Energy departments.

Beyond that, "potential adversaries are likely watching closely to see how the new administration balances its security needs and its alliance commitments with the president's goal of global nuclear elimination," Thomas Scheber, a senior Pentagon official during the Bush administration, said yesterday.

"It is somewhat of a schizophrenic Nuclear Posture Review," Hans Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said at a press briefing yesterday. "The planners are being asked to do, in a way, two very different things. How do you do that?"

Few observers expect Biden's protest to be the last word on the matter.

In fact, the senior official indicated the Nuclear Posture Review would likely regard "replacement" as at least one facet of any effort aimed at extending the lives of today's nuclear warheads.

"The starting point for analysis is that life extension [is] generally understood to include everything -- all the three R's," said the official, referring to warhead reuse, refurbishment and replacement.

A critical distinction is that any replacement parts or warheads would stop short of improving a weapon's military capabilities against a target, and instead would simply enhance its safety, security or reliability, according to the defense official.

"I think warhead replacement ought to be an option available to policy-makers as a last resort in the event of a significant failure in one or more life-extension programs," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "That means drawing a bright line" between research aimed at maintaining a replacement option, and "engineering development work to actually exercise it," he said.

The senior defense official noted that the devil is very much in the details of any approach to nuclear modernization.

"I hope we're going to be successful in defining a framework for thinking about the problem," said the official, describing a process of sorting out exactly which initiatives are -- and are not -- technically and politically feasible.

Some "elements" of the modernization framework are in place as the review coalesces, the senior defense official said, but the Pentagon-led assessment has not yet completed its proposal for maintaining the stockpile.

One idea on the table is to introduce "common design elements" across multiple warheads in the arsenal, according to the defense official.

"In the future, we may not always have different warheads for our ICBMs and our SLBMs, in particular," the official told GSN. However, he did not elaborate on the cost or technical reasons for introducing more warhead commonality into the arsenal, or the modernization benefits to be achieved.

The official did say that such an approach "would involve mixing and matching primaries and secondaries" -- the two explosive stages of a thermonuclear weapon -- that were proven functional in past experiments, prior to the moratorium.

"I think everybody agrees that even if you add some safety features and if you improve reliability and take other steps, [and] if you're using existing primaries and secondaries, that would be not a replacement but a reuse," said the official, suggesting this might be a politically palatable approach.

Not everyone would agree.

If one or more components common to warheads across the arsenal were at some point found to be defective, the reliability of a sizable portion of the stockpile might be thrown into question overnight, Kristensen noted. For that reason, the Bush administration emphasized the importance of maintaining "warhead diversity" across the sea, land and air legs of the nuclear triad.

"An untested, modernized warhead would seem to compound the risks of [a common-warhead] strategy," Kristensen told GSN yesterday in an e-mailed response to questions.

The senior defense official conceded "it's possible" that some scientists would raise a red flag on the idea of increasing warhead commonality. However, he said some other initiatives might be undertaken to mitigate the risks of warhead failure in the absence of explosive testing.

One approach might be to mix and match only those parts that have been extensively tested in the past, the official said. Another could be to increase the design margins in modernized warheads, making them less sensitive to small defects and less likely to fail.

The idea of vetting the Nuclear Posture Review's near-final modernization options with the scientific community reflects a lesson learned from the Pentagon's experience in pursuing the Reliable Replacement Warhead, the official said.

"People involved in this [review] have seen what happened with RRW and the fact that, at one moment, there appeared to be a technical consensus that this was the right approach," the official said. "And the next thing you know, you have it picked apart by JASONs and others. And the consensus behind it came apart and it came to be seen as an unnecessary and potentially 'new' weapon."

The JASON group -- an independent panel that frequently advises the U.S. government on scientific and technical matters -- in 2007 raised questions about whether the replacement warhead might run a higher risk of failure than existing designs in today's stockpile. Panel members voiced concerns that the RRW design combined warhead parts that had never been explosively tested in this new configuration (see GSN, Oct. 1, 2007).

The scientific community's worries -- though not universally shared -- led lawmakers to demand further study before they would appropriate funds to develop the new warhead.

"That history is not lost on us," the senior defense official said. "So as we go through and develop an approach and plan -- before we go public with it -- we want to be sure that it will sustain rigorous technical analysis. ... That means getting a second and a third opinion."

"It reaffirms how badly the previous administration got burned on the RRW that [Obama administration officials] are still uncertain about how to approach the modernization question," Kristensen said.

The senior defense official also said it might be impossible to identify a single, proposed modernization solution for each type of warhead in the arsenal before year's end. In such a case, further studies -- apart from the external technical vetting -- might be warranted.

It is "possible" the "NPR will recommend moving forward with a study of different options" for modernization affecting one or more warheads in today's stockpile, the senior defense official said.

Further study "could be as narrow as [considering] how to deal with issues associated with a specific warhead or couple of warheads, or it could be more fundamental," the official added. "If we don't have it all tied up in a bow -- which is very possible -- I think it's more likely to be a somewhat narrow set of questions."

The objective, the official said, would be to winnow down the potential recommendations undergoing further study "as much as possible," while offering "a very firm technical basis for what the NPR is recommending" when it debuts in December, the official said.

Scheber, now vice president of the National Institute for Public Policy, counseled against any significant delays on modernization.

"The can has already been kicked down a long road," he told GSN.

However, one advantage to further putting off a decision on potential replacement options could be "that in a few years, we will have a much better sense of how well the ongoing life-extension programs are going," Lewis said.

The Energy Department, its semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration and the national laboratories are providing scientific and technical support for the posture review. These organizations have supported an RRW-type approach in the past, though Kristensen asserted they have used their responsibility to maintain the nuclear stockpile "as an excuse for modernization."

The senior official would not say whether the JASON panel or others would be tapped to perform the external scientific study.

"Given the extremely technical nature of some of the issues that come up, there is not a very large community to which we're going to reach out," said the official.

Kristensen welcomed the concept of an external study, provided that reviewers are given adequate access to nuclear weapon information and data.

However, he argued that the postponement might help advance a replacement-warhead approach by allowing Pentagon officials to unveil the plan after national attention on the Nuclear Posture Review results diminishes, thereby minimizing the potential for renewed controversy.

"The risk is that this is really RRW through the back door," Kristensen said. The Pentagon might build "gradual support for incremental enhancements to individual systems without confronting the Obama pledge [not to build new weapons] head-on," he said.

H1N1 in Los Alamos

2009-08-27T13:58:00.002-06:00

According to the author of this comment, the recent outbreak of flu in Los Alamos is H1N1. From the Sick Students post:

After a quick visit to the peds, we got the word that the typing came back as h1n1 and the duration estimate is changed to 5-7 days rather than 3-5.

Good news is that the actual h1n1 flu that we've experienced in our household isn't too severe: fluctuating fevers, body aches, snotty nose and coughing for 3 people in the house so far and all the symptoms seem to be managed well with OTC remedies.

--Doug

Crasher Squirrel

2009-08-25T21:40:00.006-06:00

Frank,
The now famous "crasher squirrel" photo has been showing up almost everywhere on the web.

Not to be left out, a recent examination of the latest blog photo of Anastasio indicates he has a little furry friend. The resemblance between the two is uncanny!
-Anonymous

Anonymous,
Yes, the resemblance is uncanny. They remind me of a furry version of Dr. Evil and Mini Me.

Another thing they have in common is they both never seem to have enough nuts.
-Frank

2009-08-25T21:11:00.002-06:00

Study on Labs' Control Nixed

By John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer

The Obama administration has abandoned a controversial study that could have led to Pentagon control over U.S. nuclear weapons design and manufacturing.

In February, the administration's Office of Management and Budget called for a study of the possibility of moving nuclear weapons work run by the National Nuclear Security Administration, including Los Alamos and Sandia labs, out of the civilian Department of Energy and into the Department of Defense.

But after missing a key study milestone, an Office of Management and Budget spokesman acknowledged Monday that the study will not be done.

The decision to abandon the study, first reported Monday by Global Security Newswire, does not mean the idea of Pentagon control is dead, according to the statement from OMB communications director Ken Baer. But rather than a fast track study, the issue will instead be considered as part of broader discussions of the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

"The administration is looking at the most effective positioning for the NNSA," Baer's statement said, "and it very well may be that the best place for the NNSA is exactly where it is now."

In response, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., issued a statement reiterating his belief that putting the labs under military control is a bad idea.

"I do not believe the proposal to move the NNSA to the Department of Defense ever made sense. But I do believe that it's important to examine what steps we can take to ensure NNSA is strengthened and improved," Bingaman said.

The study, called for in an internal Office of Management and Budget memorandum, would have looked at the costs and benefits of taking control of the National Nuclear Security Administration away from the Department of Energy, where it now resides.

In New Mexico, it could have led to the end of six decades of civilian management of Sandia and Los Alamos national labs, which design and maintain nuclear weapons.

Administration officials never commented publicly on their reasons for launching the study, citing the internal nature of the deliberations. But others, including former Sandia National Laboratories Director C. Paul Robinson, said a change would solve management problems with the current system. The agency has faced major projects running over budget and behind schedule, along with a string of embarrassing security incidents.

The first phase of the study was to have been done in early August, with the hope that necessary decisions could be made in time to begin any resulting management changes by 2011. News of the study, first reported by the Journal in February based on an internal Obama administration document, drew intense criticism.

In March, Bingaman and a bipartisan group of senators representing key committees with jurisdiction over the labs, wrote to the administration to express "our firm opposition to the transfer of the NNSA to the Department of Defense."

It was signed by Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as Bingaman's Republican counterpart on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the leaders of two other key Senate committees with jurisdiction over the nuclear weapons program.

2009-08-25T20:23:00.003-06:00

Potential Action on Nuclear Agency Reform Deferred to Year's End

Monday, Aug. 24, 2009
By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The White House budget office has reversed course on its plan to formally review whether responsibility for the safety, security and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons should be transferred from the Energy Department to the Defense Department (see GSN, March 19).

Instead, the matter is being considered in interagency discussions and as part of a broader, ongoing Pentagon assessment of nuclear weapon strategy, forces and readiness, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget told Global Security Newswire.

"A formal study hasn't been initiated," Ken Baer, the OMB communications director, said in a written response to questions.

Congressional sources said the initiative to move the nuclear agency appears, at least for now, to have lost momentum.

"The administration's actions speak louder than any words," said one House aide, who was not authorized to address the issue publicly and requested anonymity.

Budget office leaders in early February proposed that the Energy and Defense departments jointly undertake a study on whether to reposition the National Nuclear Security Administration, which has frequently been criticized for ineffective oversight of the nuclear weapons complex (see GSN, Feb. 5).

A so-called OMB "passback memo" asked the two agencies to lead the assessment and brief the budget agency on their preliminary recommendations by Aug. 7, with a final report due Sept. 30.

Since its formation in 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration has been a semiautonomous agency of the Energy Department. Budgeted at nearly $10 billion for fiscal 2010 and employing thousands of government workers and contracted personnel, its primary responsibility is the management and security of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation activities.

However, a number of internal and external reviews over the years have said the agency has not performed as expected.

"The governance structure of the NNSA is not delivering the needed results" and "should be changed," according to the most recent assessment, from the congressionally mandated Strategic Posture Commission.

The bipartisan panel -- led by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger -- found in May that excessive regulation and micromanagement hampered the national laboratories and other weapons facilities, and contributed to skyrocketing costs.

"It is a testament to our weapon designs in the 1970s and '80s that the weapons are NNSA-proof," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "Given the failures that run from the management [of] NNSA down to the labs, it's remarkable that our bombs work at all."

The agency touts its record of achievement, noting on its Web site that the U.S. nuclear stockpile has been annually certified as viable in the absence of underground testing, based on a "wide range of breakthrough science experiments, engineering audits and high-tech computer simulations, including extensive laboratory and flight tests of warhead components and subsystems."

To help thwart nuclear proliferation, NNSA officials have worked "with a wide range of international partners, key U.S. federal agencies, the U.S. national laboratories, and the private sector to detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological material, and related WMD technology and expertise" around the world, the organization states (see GSN, June 30).

However, others have criticized the organization for failing to make sufficient progress toward nonproliferation goals.

"There is currently a 15-year backlog of some 4,200 retired [U.S.] nuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement," according to Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies, who supports moving the agency to the Defense Department. "Elimination of nuclear weapons continues to have a low priority in the DOE budget."

Despite the concerns about its performance, opposition has arisen to moving the agency to the Defense Department.

After the budget office issued its passback memo, several influential lawmakers demanded that the study be scrapped.

A bipartisan group of five key senators -- including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- on March 18 wrote to OMB Director Peter Orszag saying they seek improvements to a "dysfunctional" relationship between the Energy Department and its nuclear agency.

Still, they argued, shifting responsibility to the Defense Department is not the answer. The senators insisted that control over nuclear weapons remain in nonmilitary hands, calling civilian authority a "cornerstone" of the U.S. approach to atomic arms that has earned the "trust of other nuclear nations."

"For the past 63 years, nonmilitary control over the development of nuclear weapons technology has ensured independence of technical judgment over issues associated with our nuclear arsenal, has attracted the best scientific and technical talent to these important programs, and has served to underline the crucial differences between nuclear weapons and conventional military munitions," according to a discussion paper the senators released with their letter.

The lawmakers said a decision on how to proceed should await the conclusions of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, which is to be completed in December.

It appears the senators got their way.

Rather than launch a study specifically focused on shifting the nuclear agency to the Defense Department, Obama administration officials are less formally mulling an array of alternatives for how to accomplish NNSA missions and functions more effectively, sources said.

"The Nuclear Posture Review is examining many of the issues involved," Baer said. "Other questions will be addressed through ongoing agency discussions."

Budget office officials declined to specify what additional questions remain under consideration. However, no decisions on the matter are expected prior to completion of the Nuclear Posture Review.

In the process, Baer said, "the administration is looking at the most effective positioning for the NNSA, and it very well may be that the best place for the NNSA is exactly where it is now."

A White House decision not to include any funds for shifting the nuclear agency in its fiscal 2010 budget request -- delivered to Capitol Hill in May -- suggests that the idea "is either on the back burner or dead," the House aide said.

An NNSA spokesman had no comment, referring all questions to the White House budget office.

However, NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino in March voiced resistance to the proposal, saying a transfer would "put our national security goals on idle for two years while everyone is trying to figure out who reports to whom and how the funding comes in."

Bingaman -- whose state is home to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is responsible for designing most of today's nuclear stockpile -- remains "confident" that the nuclear agency will not end up at the Defense Department, spokeswoman Jude McCartin told GSN last week.

Some critics of the Energy Department's stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex allege that parochial interests prompted the administration to alter its study plans.

"The New Mexico congressional delegation has hotly opposed the idea" of a transfer, Alvarez wrote in June. "At stake is the state's status and the huge amount of funding that supports the weapons labs that dominate its economy.

"In response to the outcry," he continued, Energy "Secretary [Steven] Chu has offered public reassurances that this won't happen."

Alvarez said an NNSA shift to the Pentagon could help focus the Energy Department on developing alternative energy sources. As it stands, energy activities constitute just 18.5 percent of the department's spending, he wrote. Nearly twice that portion of the Energy Department budget goes toward supporting the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, federal officials have said.

"DOE's actual energy functions continue to take a backseat to propping up the nation's large and antiquated nuclear infrastructure," wrote Alvarez, who could not be reached for comment last week. "Despite the president's rhetoric about reshaping America's energy future, the DOE budget for [fiscal] 2010, minus stimulus spending, looks a lot like that of George W. Bush and several presidents before him."

For its part, the Perry-Schlesinger panel stopped short of recommending an NNSA transfer to the Defense Department, though it noted that some unidentified members saw merit in at least a partial shift.

Pentagon interest in the nuclear weapons complex "is, at best, episodic" and if moved to the Defense Department, its funding could become "a bill payer" for that department's other, higher priorities, the commission warned in its report. The group also questioned the Pentagon's ability to effectively operate the weapons laboratories and allow "independent voices" to be heard in assessing the continued viability of the nuclear stockpile.

Lewis agreed that moving the agency and its laboratories to the Pentagon would be tantamount to "suicide for a terminal cancer patient."

The posture commission said the most "appealing" alternative would be to "establish the NNSA as an independent agency reporting to the president with a "board of directors" comprising key Cabinet members. This approach was recently laid out by a Henry L. Stimson Center study.

"NNSA has the potential to support a lot of different activities other than those it has typically been associated with," said Paul Hughes, the posture commission's executive director. Oversight by multiple federal agencies could help make fuller use of the national laboratories in advancing alternative energy, nonproliferation, homeland security and intelligence initiatives, he told GSN this morning.

However, the Perry-Schlesinger panel said such an approach "does not appear to be politically practical at this time." The group did not elaborate.

Instead, it advocated establishing the National Nuclear Security Administration as an "independent agency" that reports to the president via the energy secretary. Hughes said this was the commission's consensus position.

"To make this approach work, the NNSA, as an independent agency, should have a budget separate from any other entity," the group advised.

Lewis said he does not expect the Nuclear Posture Review to significantly improve on what he sees as the commission's "anodyne" recommendation. Rather, he anticipates the nuclear agency and national laboratories would likely remain in "a death spiral of sorts," hampered by "incompetent" management and "shrinking budgets."

Sick Students

2009-08-24T14:51:00.002-06:00

This off-topic comment came in on the Louis Rosen post. I'm putting it here, in case there is LANL-related interest.

Anyone know anything about this?

Flu-Like Illness Hits Two Los Alamos Schools

Associated Press

More than 100 students called in sick Monday at Los Alamos public schools, and the state Department of Health is looking into whether some of those illnesses might be swine flu.
The agency also is checking into the possibility swine flu is responsible for absences among kindergarten students at the early childhood center in Kirtland near Farmington.

The Health Department expected an increase in influenza-like illnesses as classes began this month because swine flu is continuing to spread in New Mexico.

Department spokeswoman Deborah Busemeyer says the agency has asked doctors and school nurses in Los Alamos and Kirtland to take samples from ill students for testing for swine flu, known as the H1N1 virus.

Beloved Los Alamos Scientist Louis Rosen Dies

2009-08-23T18:59:00.004-06:00

From Carol Clark's NewsExtras blog: Beloved Los Alamos Scientist Louis Rosen Dies

Also: Louis Rosen Will Be Greatly Missed By His Family, Friends and By People All Over The World

Renowned Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Louis Rosen died in his sleep at 6:30 p.m. Thursday from complications of a subdural hematoma.

Rosen, 91, was as brilliant and vital as ever and went to work at the laboratory as usual on Thursday Aug. 13, his family said.

It is presumed he continued his normal routine spending time at Mesa Public Library the following day.

Rosen apparently fell in the early hours of Saturday Aug. 15 at his Los Alamos home.

He was airlifted to UNM Medical Center in Albuquerque where he remained until late Thursday afternoon.

[...]

Construction Companies, the NNSA, and DOE National Laboratories

2009-08-22T16:15:00.024-06:00

At what point is somebody important going to admit that it was a huge mistake to have sold off LANL to Bechtel, a large construction company? How much more evidence will it take before somebody owns up to the fact that that the additional $200 million it costs each year to have Bechtel, hiding under the umbrella of the LANS Limited Liability Corporation running LANL will never be reclaimed through "increased efficiency of operations", as was claimed back in 2005 when NNSA put LANL up on the bidding block?

When the University of California operated the LANL contract, they did so for a fee of $8 million per year. Granted, they did a terrible job during the last twenty or thirty years of LANL's history. Remember Pete Nanos, UC's grand plan for putting LANL back on the straight and narrow? Look where that got us. However, three years later LANS and Bechtel, in retrospect, make UC look like a paragon of efficiency. And that's saying something. If you worked at LANL under UC, you know what I mean.

Before anybody rushes to explain to *why* no one has owned up to the horrible mistake that NNSA made back in 2005 when they put the LANL contract up for bid, I already think I know the answer. Let's see if you agree.

But before we get too much farther on in this ramble, let's just take a second to thank former New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici one more time for his brilliant decision to create the NNSA. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks, Pete.

Ok, back to *why* nobody will admit that the NNSA, and their decision to sell off LANL (and LLNL) to a large, for-profit military industrial construction contractor was a huge mistake. I actually think there are three, perhaps four possible explanations for this massively flawed decision, and why nobody will now own up to it:

Explanation Number 1. Congress and Bill Richardson, ex-DOE Secretary of Energy actually believed Linton Brooks, then head of the NNSA, and Tom D'Agostino when they made their claim that the new LLC would recoup their approximately $200 / year costs through improved efficiencies of operation. Nobody will admit to having believed that now, since it is so patently absurd to have ever believed the fairy tail, in retrospect. Domenici is no longer around, so he's certainly not going to 'fess up to falling for such a whopper. Bingaman? Udall? Don't make me laugh.

Explanation Number 2. Nobody believed Brooks and D'Agostino, because they were all in agreement with the (then) secret plan to strip all non-plutonium pit science from LANL, and turn the rest of the place into the next Rocky Flats Plant. Costs? Efficiency of operation? Who gives a shit? Now, however, since the plans to build a new "Taj Mahal" of a plutonium science complex at LANL seem to be falling apart, nobody is going to admit having been a backer of that plan.

Explanation Number 3. Everybody believed Brooks and D'Agostino on their claims that the new LLC would be more cost-efficient than UC had been. I guess it is possible for that many people high up in the decision chain to be that stupid, but who would ever admit to it after the fact?

Explanation Number 4. Bechtel wanted the LANL contract, so Bechtel bought the contract through the usual corporate/political process; i.e. they bought the miscellaneous government officials responsible for approving the sale, thus guaranteeing the sale.

Take a look at LANL and LLNL today. They are buried under unbelievable mountains of useless bureaucracy. They make the old days of working under the University of California look like a finely tuned Swiss clock. Look at the latest gems that Bechtel has bequeathed upon the two sister labs: Ladder Training for both sites, and mandatory Bicycle Helmet Training for anybody at LLNL who wants to ride one of the old clunker bikes they have laying around the place for staff to use to get from one building to another. Have you ever been to Livermore, and have you ever seen one of those bikes? First, it's flat as a pancake at LLNL, and second, you could not get one of those old clunkers going fast enough to hurt anybody, and finally, it has worked fine the just way it is now for umpteen years.

These are just two of the latest dictoms of idiocy that our fine new for-profit contractor has brought to the table. Why is nobody paying attention? Where is DOE Secretary Chu while all of this is happening? Good questions; I have no idea.

--Doug

Comment of the Week, Thursday Afternoon Edition

2009-08-20T12:30:00.003-06:00

Who is going to win the NBCCRB (NNSA - Bechtel Corporate Cup Race to the Bottom): LANL, or LLNL?

The comment below from the Dylan - Listen and Chill post is the COW that prompts the question. Until just recently I had LANL comfortably ahead, with a fine collection of accomplishments placing them well in the lead against our sister NNSA lab. I mean, the highly imaginative use of JB Weld at LANL -- this alone placed our proud organization in the top two of the competition.

When you throw in all of the other MOIs (Measures of Incompetence) implemented by the Bechtel holding company running the place, it was looking like LANL was a lock to win the prestigious NBCCRB cup. I refer of course to the highly-regarded LCP (Laptop Crippling Program), the very successful LLAOOEOTH (Let's Lose All Of Our Email Over The Holidays) project, the BWSOSITF (Bottled Water Shoot Ourselves In The Foot) initiative, and of course the novel RGGRQ (Radioactive Gold Get Rich Quick) program, it was looking like LANL was a shoe-in. After all: LANL staff proudly wear shoes that GRIP!

But, we can't rule out those Livermorons! They have traditionally been fierce competitors of ours. True to form, just when it was beginning to appear that LANL had an unbeatable lead, they come up with this:

-You LANL losers can eat it.

We Livermorons have numerous opportunities to keep our skills sharp by taking advantage of LLNL provided training.

On this afternoons agenda...Ladder and Stair Training - HS 5250.

Its why we lead in SCIENCE!

All I can say is: Team, don't let your guard down! The race isn't over until it's over! You might think you have a comfortable lead in this competition, but I'm warning you: those sneaks at LLNL are reading from the same playbook as you are, and they may have a few surprises still up their sleeves.

--Doug

Update, 6:10pm. It occurs to me that there is a perfect Dylan piece to accompany this post: Everything's Broken.

Attorney Recommendations?

2009-08-19T21:12:00.003-06:00

Frank,
Can you make the following an anonymous top-level post please?

Can any of the readership make attorney recommendations for employees who might need representation to help protect their jobs? Without getting into specifics, this could be useful information for any employees who have the difficult decision about what and when and whether and how to disclose information.

Thanks,
Anonymous

Anonymous,
I think yours is the most frequent question I get from readers who contact me privately. I don't have a specific firm I recommend, but the good news is that many employees have needed such help before. Whether your issue is polygraphs, drug testing, contamination, discrimination, retaliation... whatever it is you probably aren't the first and aren't alone. Google for news about employees who were in a situation similar to yours and find out who represented them.

One further hopeful note: the legal team you will be opposing isn't exactly world class. In fact the one I'm thinking of now has no class. Hey Pablo, wouldn't it be fun if I had a conversation with your dentist?
Frank

Dylan - Listen and Chill

2009-08-19T18:41:00.002-06:00

All the signs indicate some "chil l" is in order.

Third Comment of the Week

2009-08-16T08:53:00.006-06:00

Good stuff is pouring in this weekend. Greg's comments have proven to be a lightning rod. This one is a Nut Rocker.

--Doug

Greg, this transition may be perfectly rational and beneficial to employees. The reactions here are symptomatic of the complete erosion of trust that's been accomplished by LANL management over the last several years. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Our management can't even seem to get the basics of modern human existince right anymore - e.g. safe drinking water and a non-porous roof over our heads. Our access to the basic tools to do our jobs is being eroded daily, and we are increasingly treated as babies in the safety and security arenas.

Mike berated a room full of managers last week (at the Leadership Summit on Alignment, of all places) for holding different views and experiences of the Lab than his own. Why can't Alignment go bottom-up as well as top-down? It was supremely ironic that Alan Bishop presented a video about the Shackleton Endurance expedition and pointed out that Shackleton built alignment by rolling his sleeves up and doing all the same jobs his team was doing (e.g. scrubbing the floors). Can anyone here imagine Mike writing an IWD and hand carrying it to all the FOD signoffs? Entering his own receipts into Concur? Working in an office with a leaky roof and shit-filled drinking water? Waiting an hour for a KSL taxi to take him to White Rock for Rad II testout?

I don't think so.

Second Comment of the Week

2009-08-15T19:33:00.003-06:00

Since Frank is presently totally occupied with getting his house built, I've culled another comment from this week's contributions for discussion. This one is topical and addresses LANS' decision to drop LANL staff and retirees from health plan coverage if they don't take action during this year's open enrollment.

Click the image to enlarge.

1. People have already chosen their health plan options: HMO, PPO, or whatever. They have already agreed that money will be subtracted out of their paychecks every month. If the benefits folks choose to mess around with what looks like a pretty good set of health plans, the least they could do is make the process as painless as possible for the laboratory workers. Dropping people is the absolute worst default.

2. While we are on the topic --- what exactly was wrong with the current plans? My guess is, not much. The benefits folks just had to continue changing things, to give an appearance of constant activity.

For the very same reason, the Lab (and the folks at LASO) are constantly generates a litany of new rules, memos, training plans, you name it. A stream of "computer security innovations", new travel and visitor rules, procurement changes, etc is continuously being dumped on people, severely disrupting productivity and depressing moral. The eventual loser in all of this by the way is the American Taxpayer, who pours over $2B/year into this Lab and gets less and less in return.

The truth is, if this activity-for-the-sake-of-

showing-activity were to simply stop, things would improve. It would also become instantly clear that a whole bunch of folks are really not needed here. Indeed, we are paying them out of our humongous overhead to impede our work.

They themselves see that, which is precisely why they can't stop their activity-for-the-sake-of-showing-activity, even for a second.

--Doug

Comment of the Week

2009-08-15T11:59:00.003-06:00

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The topic of this week's COW is "Drunken Posts". Here's an example:

Where´re my two! rejected posts at 8/14/09 ≈5:10 PM, and at 8/15/09 ≈10:35 AM ???

PS: Doug, you have censored six posts in total by me, e.g. you are a censor, coward, and a hypocrite.

This, after two badly-spelled, off-topic political rants were rejected. All I can say is, please, PLEASE say this to me directly to my face some time. Please!

Have a great weekend everybody. And of course: don't drink and post.

--Doug

Comment of the Week

2009-08-07T17:59:00.009-06:00

This week's COW wasn't actually written by anybody at LANL, it is an article by Paul Guinnessy who writes for Physics Today. An anonymous reader submitted it to last week's Comment of the Week post. Paul is no stranger to LANL; he's written about the place on several occasions. The article is related to last week's COW post, though, via the common topic of "research at DOE nuke weapons labs".

From today's Physics Today Blog, in the politics section, is this article:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2009/08/science-key-to-nuclear-labs-fu.html

By Physics Today on August 7, 2009 3:46 PM

In the first public meeting of the President’s Council of Advisers in Science and Technology (PCAST), US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the loss of basic science and technology funding at the nuclear-weapons labs Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore have had an inverse effect in the labs ability to attract "the best and the brightest."

During the 1990s the labs basic research funding was on an “10-year-glide-path” to be cut in half he said, which was only stopped in 1998. "To be blunt," said Chu, "the best and the brightest didn’t want to be weapons designers...they wanted to do good science."

Chu pointed out that this model—of using basic science as the carrot which would eventually lead to an interest in more applied work—has been common at all the major innovation incubators such as the Bell Laboratories or in the weapons labs early history.

How to attract high caliber staff to the weapons labs in the current climate “is an unsolved problem” said Chu, who asked for PCAST to assess ways to attract the best staff to DOE. In the meeting Chu implied that there is currently a review underway of the nuclear weapons management structure.

Chu also expanded on the principles behind his request to Congress to fund centers of excellence in energy research in which DOE would act more like a venture capitalist fund and invest in people, not in individual projects. "In World War II you just picked out outstanding people and gave them a problem and told them to solve it," he said. "They treated problems as triage. You would tackle the hard problem first and move onto the next if it didn't work." A similar attitude needs to exist in energy research he said.

"The key would be the management team and whether they are willing to take on this task," he said. "There are a couple of experiments I want to do in this regard."

Paul Guinnessy

I wonder what kind of "experiments" Dr. Chu has in mind. Do you suppose they might involve tasking a construction company's management team with oversight of a DOE research center of excellence? Somehow, I have trouble envisioning that.

--Doug

Bad Water

2009-08-06T19:26:00.005-06:00

Hi Frank,
Big news. I am attaching a preliminary report on what will bring back some memories for you. It came from a colleague who was told by management to stay quiet.

Anyhow, remember how the lab officials all said the water was good to drink? Trust us! Well, CMR's water is really crapped up and people have been forced to drink it for months now. All this to save money so that Mikey and friends could get bigger bonuses. Was it worth it in the end? How many people are pregnant and drinking this water, could get cancer, etc. Are they going to provide full disclosure testing for all the inhabitants and visitors of the CMR? In how many other buildings is this going to find duplication? Anyhow, shit is going to hit the fan.

-Anonymous

Anonymous,
Yes, it does bring back some memories. Extrapolating from my experience, people who drank the water will not be told for years, if ever, what contaminants were in it. If, as it appears, someone made the decision to pull bottled water from CMR without checking first if the building water was safe, that person will never be held accountable. And finally FOIA requests or complaints to the Ombuds office or DOE IG will be a waste of time. LANS will never pay more than lip service to safety because nobody who could make them will. I'd love to be proven wrong someday. LANS could start by answering my question.
Frank

[View the preliminary report here.]

Update, 8-7-2009: Somebody in the Senate has taken an interest in You-Know-Who this morning.

Click to enlarge.

Comment of the Week

2009-08-02T19:23:00.002-06:00

Short & sweet. From the Direct Line to Washington post, where the conversation had once again drifted back to the topic of how LANL/NNSA/LANS (in roughly that order) have chosen to narrow LANL's mission to focus primarily NW plutonium work.

Yes, I know there are other WFO programs at LANL. But I am also aware that NNSA has clearly stated that the new, improved LANL was to have a core mission centered around plutonium weapons work. I'm just glad that I'm not still at LANL trying to continue to bring in WFO within current management environment.

I admit that the term LDRD Welfare Queen kind of tickled me. I had not heard it before, but in retrospect it is oddly fitting, based on my past LDRD experiences.

Our comment of the Week:

To a certain extent I agree with you. When the cold war ended, the lab made a conscious decision to retreat back into its core mission (NW) rather than to try to keep and expand a diversified portfolio. The only science facility that they really worked to protect was LANSCE. While this was politically expedient and worked reasonably well for over a decade, LANL is now paying for that decision. You can blame that decision on Sig Hecker.

If LANL truly wanted to maintain its science and its staff, what they should consider doing is to give any staff member who brings in a new contract a certain percentage of it as a bonus. That would probably solve any funding shortfalls in short order. Of course, that isn’t going to happen because the primary goal of LANS/NNSA/DOE is control, not performance or doing good science. It took the DOE ~60 years to finally get LANL to knuckle under and accept “guidance” from Washington. If either the LANL managers or the NNSA managers don’t control LANL’s budget, then they don’t have any leverage. They don’t like staff members ignoring them.

The reason I made my earlier comments about bringing money into the lab is that when I worked at LANL it used to really frost my butt to go out and bring in outside funding only to have it taxed and given to some LDRD welfare queen who was spending their entire career living off of the largess of the laboratory. If these people are really as good as they think they are, then they are the ones who should be developing new programs for the lab. LDRD should be seed money for programs, but it has largely deteriorated into a mechanism to maintain the lab’s technical base.

--Doug

Life After LANL

2009-07-29T12:54:00.005-06:00

One of my ex-LANL colleagues, Ron Minnich was written up a couple of days ago in the New York Times, and, even more impressive: in Slashdot today.

Congratulations, Ron!

--Doug

Click to Enlarge

Comment of the Week

2009-07-26T10:38:00.009-06:00

When I first saw this comment on last week's Direct Line to Washington post, I thought to myself, "This is the COW!" After thinking about it for a split second or two longer, however, I realized there is really not all that much left to say about conditions at LANL which has not already been blurted out here, repeatedly. Further, having watched the trend in blog commentary since 2004, I've noticed a distinct degradation in the overall literacy of comment contributions, meaning that repeated poorly written complaints about conditions at LANL will only have an accumulative negative impact.

It should be noted that this "direct line to Washington" has been live since day one. Congressmen, Senators, DOE, NNSA, the news media, and all the involved corporate entities read the blog. They are familiar with all of the issues that are repeatedly discussed here. And yet the status remains quo. Therefore, by definition they collectively like things at LANL just the way they are. So, I still select this as comment of the week, but probably not for the reasons that the submitter had envisioned. Instead, I'd like to use this comment to illustrate that the "direct line to Washington" has had no effect whatsoever on how LANL is being managed. Nor will it, in all likelihood because those responsible for the new for-profit scheme for running LANL are quite happy with the result.

Our COW:

A *huge* thanks to PAD Rees for reminding us that we have this direct line to Washington available for our use. I suggest that we have a "Direct Line to Washington" message that our blog moderators select periodically and post To The Attention Of: Our DC Readership.

Perhaps this way we can raise the visibility of the damage that NNSA's "for-profit" national laboratory sell-off has caused.

Thanks for providing the germ of an excellent idea, Will! You are clearly a "big picture" person.

Another comment that just came in this morning deserves honorable mention:

Reading and writing from DC

Like much of this blog, these letters miss an essential point. It is not the guard force or the management that makes LANL such a sick institution. It's simply the billions of dollars of bad science that was enabled by Domenici, the misuse of secrecy and ineffective peer review. The evidence is clear and comes from an analysis of DOE Office of Science grants. These guys are competent and professional and they have given out the last of the Domenici monies. There is only a remnant of disgust now that the playing field has been leveled.

All LANL has to do now is re-enter the competition and somehow undo the effect of so many years of bad behavior.

I agree with our DC contributor that Dominici's paternal largess towards LANL over the years did indeed foster a LANL that was not required to be competitive. The money came in each year regardless. However, I disagree with his having downplayed the effects of ineffective management as a contributor to LANL's current state. Ineffective management will lead to an ineffective institution. Period. Mr. Reading and Writing from DC: your Kung Fu is not strong.

--Doug

2009-07-25T00:00:00.002-06:00

Los Alamos guard company laying off workers

KOB.com
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - A company that provides uniformed guards for Los Alamos National Laboratory, SOC Los Alamos, plans to cut up to 18 jobs.

The action is being taken because of a reduction in funding, according to a company e-mail forwarded to the Los Alamos Monitor by SOC Los Alamos general manager Ken Freeman.

SOC is encouraging workers to apply for a voluntary separation to minimize layoffs.

The reductions are expected to be completed by Sept. 30.

2009-07-24T23:22:00.003-06:00

Accident victim dies after years in coma

By ROGER SNODGRASS, Los Alamos Monitor Editor

A tragic chapter for the community and particularly for Efren Martinez of Cordova, N.M. and his family came to a close this week. Martinez died Tuesday after 13 ½ years in a coma caused by a traumatic electrical accident while working for a construction contractor at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Martinez’ brother-in-law Richard Pacheco, speaking for family, said, “This brings closure to the family. We did not want him to be forgotten.”

The accident occurred on Jan. 17, 1996. The father of two sons, he was 35 years old at the time, when a jackhammer he was using struck a 13,200 volt power line. According to Monitor reports from that time, Martinez was working in a basement at the former Plutonium Processing Facility on DP Road. He suffered massive electrical shock and went into cardiac arrest. He was treated by employees and emergency technicians who rushed to the site and was then taken to the intensive care unit at Los Alamos Medical Center. His heart was restarted, but he never woke up again.

During the years that followed, his case became symbolic of inadequate safety practices at Los Alamos. According to the Monitor summary, construction projects were halted for a lengthy period of time while reviews were conducted.

Subsequent laboratory statements acknowledged that Martinez was working on a job that had not been properly analyzed for health and safety hazards or adequately managed for the level of risk involved. Still later, Department of Energy occurrence reports surfaced detailing a series of mistakes that contributed to the injury.

“It was an accident waiting to happen,” Pacheco said, “It happened to be him.”

On June 23, 1998, the laboratory announced an “out-of-court” settlement had been reached in the case, that included a $13 million payment to the family, negotiated by celebrity trial lawyer Gary Spence.

“It was so many years ago, said Pacheco. “A lot of people lose track.”

The older son, Marcos is now 21 and Antonio is 17.

“The kids grew up without a father,” Pacheco said. “It’s been hard for them to see their father like that. They’re okay with it now. He died surrounded by friends and family till he took his last breath.”

During Martinez’ years in an unconscious state, he was cared for at the Sombrillo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Los Alamos.

“The family wants to thank the nurses and the staff at Sombrillo for their outstanding care during the saddest and lowest times for them,” he said. “We also want to thank friends, coworkers and all the trade union members who helped the family when this accident struck.”

[Download the 176 page Type A Accident Investigation Board Report here.]

New Order Message?

2009-07-20T12:57:00.003-06:00

Frank,
The newest AD for Environment, Safety and Health, is yet another Bechtilian. He and his predecessor Dick Watkins (Bechtilian) successfully lowered recordable injury and illness statistics NOT through the implementation of better safety programs, but by getting the message across to medical management that most injuries occurring at LANL are “not work related” and therefore do not enter into LANL injury illness statistics. (This message is counter to the directive of Federal regulations governing determination of which injuries/illnesses are work related and therefore enter into LANL statistics).

As a result of the “new order message” Occupational Medicine management makes convoluted analyses that the “the mechanism of the injury/ergonomic malady” was not related to the injury happening at work. So PRESTO, it’s not work related! And incidentally, it doesn’t “count” as an injury/illness in LANL statistics.

Cantwell may also have gotten “creative” when outlining his education after his Bachelors degree. The following comes from a press release on his promotion. He is supposedly working on a master’s degree through an online university called Walden. (One wonders whether it is related to the Walden School in Doonesbury, which was a “safety school “that anyone could get into…) Cantwell’s supposedly working an a masters in industrial and organizational psychology, but a call to the university 800 # and a review of their website does not list such a degree. Perhaps Cantwell is too busy now that he’s attained AD status to actually pursue the mythical degree…

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/15854

In addition to helping the Lab fulfill its environmental stewardship role, Cantwell will lead the Lab's initiatives to protect the safety and health of its employees and that of residents of surrounding communities. Cantwell joined the Laboratory in 2006 and has led the Laboratory's Environment, Safety, and Health Integration Office, where he was responsible for integrated work management and safety improvement initiatives, such as the Voluntary Protection Program, Human Performance Improvement, and Behavior Based Safety programs. He also was in charge of Environment, Safety, and Health training and the Laboratory's Barrier Removal process.

Previously, Cantwell served at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as Quality Services Division director, and later as Safety Leadership Program director and Health and Safety Field Services group leader. From 1989 to 2000, Cantwell worked at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo as Environment, Safety and Health Support Services manager. Cantwell started his career as an industrial hygienist and bioenvironmental engineer with American Airlines.

Cantwell holds a bachelor's degree in environmental health from Colorado State University and is currently completing his master's degree in industrial and organizational psychology from Walden University. He is a board-certified industrial hygienist and safety professional.

-Anonymous

Anonymous,
I looked up Walden University on the web. If I'm looking at the correct university, they do have a master's program in Organizational Psychology and Development. Perhaps the name of the program has changed slightly, or the press release is just mistaken? I'm not sure because the web page says:

You can focus on a variety of areas, including
The evolution of the organization (dynamics of international and virtual organizations)
Talent management and development
Leadership and motivation through a consultative approach
Cross-cultural communication and collaboration
Organizational adaptability to positive social change within a global environment

That doesn't sound like the best fit for the associate director for Environment, Safety, Health & Quality.

By the way, could you forward a copy of the "new order message"?
Frank

Direct Line to Washington

2009-07-18T22:35:00.008-06:00

This just in: In a fit of pique last week, PAD of Global Security (does anyone else consider that to be a pompous title?) William Rees declared that he was tired of there being a "direct line" to Washington which continued to allow "unfortunate" news tidbits to bypass the LANS PR folks before being released into the wild.

Rees declared that he was therefore "going to shut that blog down". It was not clear if Rees planned to do this before, or after he became the lab's next Director. We presume that he meant he planning to shut down this blog, but I suppose he could have been venting his spleen about John Fleck's Albuquerque Journal blog instead.

The outburst was apparently triggered by his ire at the news leakage of last week's
TA-35 events (acetone and nitric acid mixing experiment).

Well, there you have it: we're getting shut down. Or John is.

Now, let's move on to more important stuff: Comment of the Week. We had several topic areas which generated COW candidates. There was, of course, the great Purell debate, in which one faction was lobbying for LANS to install dispensers at the hand readers.

And then there was the recurring topic of having "for profit" contractors running our National labs. Also, the report on DOE's Secretary Chu possibly deciding to give DOE a "shock treatment" received a number of good comments. It is from this category that our COW was eventually selected. From the CHU MOVING TO OVERHAUL DOE MANAGEMENT, CONTRACTOR OVERSIGHT post, here is our winner of the LTRS Comment of the Week award. The author of this comment demonstrates a clear insight into the nature of DOE, and how DOE's ineffective bureaucracy cascades down to its contractors.

I think that Drs. Chu, Holdren and Koonin understand the symptoms at DOE, but they don't understand the problem. Bureaucracies are a lot like people: they grow old, incontinent, and feeble-minded. The only the difference is that bureaucracies are put on perpetual life support. Everyone's afraid to pull the plug because they don't want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater".

Unfortunately, at the DOE the baby drowned a long time ago. The problems exhibited at DOE are not of recent origin. I worked at LANL for close to 30 years and every year the bureaucracy was worse than the previous year. It was always more control from Washington, more paperwork, more unfunded mandates, and a more dysfunctional bureaucracy. Every year you could accomplish less and less.

The time has come to pull the plug. Let it die and transfer all of those DOE managers into some other agency. Then maybe you can start all over with a clean slate. Reorganizing is just tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You have to get rid of all of the employees and all of the rules.

--Doug

Health Benefits

2009-07-11T14:39:00.002-06:00

The UC, LLNS, LANS Mashup

Consider the current political situation. NNSA is in the fourth year of its plan to reconfigure the nuclear weapons complex. The plan is oriented toward retrenching and down sizing probably requiring closing one weapons lab. Since some of the weapons work is being consolidated at LANL but none at LLNL, it is clear which lab they will chose to close. The move of Anastasio to LANL and putting Miller in charge at LLNL was another indicator. Miller was the also ran in every selection of a new director during my time at LLNL. He is a prime choice to preside over the dismemberment of LLNL.

The NNSA reconfiguration plan was predicated on Congress approving the Reliable Replacement Warhead and scheduling 5-year upgrade cycles. Not only is that not going to happen, Obama has promised to quit paying for the unused weapons of the Cold War. Guess what weapons are on the top of the list. That leaves NNSA with no weapons programs to fund the weapons labs. The way the government works, it takes time to wind down large unneeded organizations. The NNSA reconfiguration plan is a good start at it. Without viable nuclear weapons programs, is not a question of if but when LANL will follow LLNL into oblivion.

We at LLNL are fighting to have responsibility for our retiree medical benefits moved back to the University of California. LLNS and NNSA never intended to assume responsibility for our medical benefits. Last August, I complained to UC’s top lawyer, Jeffery Blair, that UC was in breach of my employment contract. Soon thereafter, NNSA modified the LLNS contract to allow retroactive modification of the TCP1 medical insurance requirements. Then I got an email from an LLNS lawyer saying that she was replying for Jeffery Blair and that LLNS was doing a great job providing our medical benefits. That made me mad enough to do something about the situation.

I formed the University of California Livermore Retirees Group to put public, political and legal pressure on UC to resume their obligation for our benefits. Neither UC nor we are parties to the NNSA-LLNS contract so it doesn’t change our legal relationship. We are at the point of soliciting funds and hiring legal council to initiate a suit against UC.

Earlier this year I tried to contract LANL employees and convince them to join us. At that time nobody showed any interest. I believe it is time to ask LANL retirees again if they are interested in joining their LLNL counterparts. If so, now is the time to act. We have collected enough funds to get our legal situation analyzed. We are negotiating with a top national law firm, having the expertise and resources to handle UC. LANL retirees are in nearly the same position as we. They haven’t been severely impacted yet, but it looks like it will not be for long. Remember that LLNS and LANS are LLCs so when they disappear, so do all their liabilities, including retiree medical benefits.

It would be a shame if we have the facts to prevail but lack the funds to pursue our case. We need more recruits to help us. If you would like to find out more about us, type llnlretiree.com into the navigation bar of your web browser or email llnlretiree@comcast.net.

- Joe Requa

2009-07-11T10:51:00.003-06:00

CHU MOVING TO OVERHAUL DOE MANAGEMENT, CONTRACTOR OVERSIGHT

Todd Jacobson, Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor

Preparing to make his first significant stab at streamlining the inner workings of the Department of Energy, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has initiated a far-ranging effort to examine the way DOE conducts business as a precursor to potential drastic changes, WC Monitor has learned. In the midst of a series of white papers, discussions and briefings, Chu is considering everything from a broad reorganization of the Department's management and regulatory structure to redefining the relationship between the Department and its contractors. Chu, as the former head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, has experienced first hand a compliance-driven culture that one white paper obtained by WC Monitor described as emphasizing "compliance over performance, prescription over accountability, and more over better," and has indicated internally that he wants to make serious changes. "Steve has signaled quite strongly that he wants to change a lot of things," one official close to the discussions told WC Monitor. "He's talked to the contractors, and he's talked to the lab directors about it. There are definitely people inside Forrestal [DOE headquarters] working on this reform agenda."

When it comes to the organization of the Department itself, Chu is reportedly considering a number of options, such as rebranding DOE as the Department of Energy and Climate, making NNSA more autonomous, and splitting the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy into two separate offices, according to officials. On the management side, emphasis is being placed on truly achieving DOE's long-held goal of performance-based contracting through streamlining Department orders and changing the contractor oversight model. Chu, however, has not named anyone to head up the effort. "The real question is which areas do you want to tackle and what kind of authority is given to the person in charge of making it happen," the official said.

"The big test is whether somebody is going to be given the charge to go do this or is it just going to be a bunch of happy talk." The effort would likely be driven through Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Poneman, but Poneman lacks a management background and efforts to hire a "deputy to the deputy" for management that might assume a leadership role on changes to the Department have stalled, the official said.

'Shock to the System' Needed

Attempts to reform the Department of Energy are nothing new, but Chu's experience as a former laboratory director has given some credence to his push for change. The idea has wide support among the contracting community, which has faced increasing hurdles in performing work under what some have said is a heavy burden of DOE rules and regulations.

According to the white paper that has circulated around the Department focusing on culture change between DOE and its national laboratories, "A significant shock to the system is needed to force change in the behavior of both the Department and our contractors."

Lawmakers attempted to strip the bureaucracy from the nation's weapons and nonproliferation programs when the National Nuclear Security Administration was created as a semi-autonomous agency within DOE in 1999. However, the Department's continued oversight of the agency sparked a recent push to reconsider the role of NNSA within the Department, including a study initiated by the White House Office of Management and Budget into whether NNSA might be better served as a part of the Department of Defense or as a completely autonomous agency. The problems that face NNSA contractors are emblematic of issues facing contractors across the Department, and the white paper criticizes the current relationship between the Department and its contractors. What was designed to be a relationship in which DOE specified the goals and requirements and contractors focused on meeting the mission with best business practices has "eroded to the point of invisibility" and "the current nature of the relationship between DOE and its laboratories is far from productive," the white paper says. "In fact, it is now reinforcing unproductive behavior by both DOE and the contractors."

Balancing 'Risk and Process'

Reflecting the Administration's interest in changing the culture at DOE, Under Secretary for Science Steve Koonin criticized the way DOE conducts its business in comments to the Energy Facility Contractors Group late last month.

"I am astounded, both from my business background and then more extensive university background, how the system does or does not do its business. There's a need to make things more transparent [and a] need to speed things up, not only the contractors, but inside the Department itself," he said, adding, "I think overall the Department has become overly conservative in the way it does its business.

We need to get to a reasonable balance between risk and process."

Indeed, the white paper delivers a scathing critique of the Department's management culture, describing it as risk averse and more focused on compliance with regulations than on achieving contractor performance.

The culture has evolved over many years, the white paper says, driven by a combination of contractor missteps, Congressional criticism, internal and external audits and guidance from the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. "In this environment, DOE staff organizations expanded to fill the void and buttress the 'no risk' approach, each time responding to the crisis of the moment with a 'fix' that entailed the layering of additional process and oversight on the contractors," the white paper says This is most evident, the paper says, in the area of safety, where the compliance-driven culture has wreaked the most havoc on the ability of contractors to meet mission requirements.

"The Department and its contractors now find themselves entombed under the weight of innumerable pages of orders, manuals, guides, requirements, processes, etc. that are confusing, conflicting and duplicative," the white paper says. "Thus has the Department evolved into a true bureaucracy with a culture that operates under the presumption that the continual addition of new requirements and more layers of oversight on its contractors are acceptable and good practices."

External or Self-Regulation the Answer?

The white paper suggests shifting to an approach that minimizes the amount of requirements imposed on contractors and focusing on performance outcomes and results while holding contractors responsible for achieving those outcomes. It also suggests that an "appropriate" level of risk should be adopted by finding a way to "institutionalize and defend an appropriate amount of risk-taking in the way the Department does business." That will likely involve "holding the line" against outsideoverseers such as the DNFSB. Over the past several years, DOE has worked to push back against the idea that the board, which does not have a formal regulatory role over the Department, has a "veto" authority over DOE actions. In a 2007 memorandum, then-Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell directed that DOE staff would no longer be required to coordinate with Board staff prior to submitting correspondence, a move described at the time as working to ensure that DOE line managers were responsible for safety at Department sites and that the Board served in an oversight function.

External regulation has been suggested as way to simplify DOE's system of regulation and streamline operations- perhaps through the Operational Safety and Health Agency and/or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-but that option presents its own set of hurdles and challenges, and Chu likely will move to refine the DOE order system instead. The white paper suggests significantly cutting down the documents governing M&O contractors, leaving the Worker Health and Safety Rule (10 CFR 851) and the Quality Assurance Rule (10 CFR 830, Subpart A) to govern the Department's expectations of contractors.

The paper also suggests a "brutal review" of "other relevant requirements documents" like DOE manuals, orders, guides, notices, standards or handbooks, doing away with strict compliance as a benchmark for contractor success and eliminating the system of penalties that hold contractors accountable for compliance failures. It would be replaced with a system that would require contractors to achieve third-party certifications for management systems and would focus accountability and enforcement on maintaining those certifications and meeting mission requirements. "The way the system works it prescribes not only what we are supposed to be doing but also how we're doing it," an industry official said. "Let's go back to the GOCO [government-owned, contractor-operated] model where the government describes the mission, tells the contractors what it wants done, and the contractors bring best business practices in terms of how to achieve those outcomes. That's a fundamentally good model. We have drifted substantially in the last three decades from that model."

2009-07-11T08:32:00.002-06:00

Audit Smokes Out Lax Fire Protection at U.S. Nuclear Weapons Lab

Fewer than half of the fire prevention shortcomings examined at the Los Alamos National Laboratory had been fixed after previous evaluation, an Energy Department audit reports

By Katherine Harmon, ScientificAmerican.com

A recent audit of fire prevention measures has scorched the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the facility that created the atomic bomb during World War II and is now the home of top-level national security and radioactive material research.

The report [pdf] by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) inspector general reveals that the lab had failed to address problems pointed out three years ago in an evaluation that found at least 800 fire prevention "deficiencies". The most recent audit, conducted between December 2007 and April 2009, revealed that fewer than half of the 296 audited issues had been fixed.

The subject of fires in the area is especially sensitive after a 2000 blaze charred 43,000 acres (17,400 hectares) that included 7,700 acres (3,100 hectares) of lab property.

"Safeguarding against fires, regardless of origin, is essential to protecting employees, surrounding communities, and national security assets," wrote DoE Inspector General Gregory Friedman.

"If such a fire did occur and was not quickly suppressed," the report authors noted, "there could be a risk that hazardous or radiological material could be released." The authors assert, however, that such a release wouldn't entail "nuclear safety issues.”

A sampling of problems the audit pinpointed include: a request to replace an "unreliable" fire alarm panel in a processed plutonium facility had not been fulfilled; a kitchen hood fire suppression system, required to be tested semiannually, had not been tested in four years; and facility operators did not always have money and time earmarked for fixing outstanding issues.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the contracts for operating the facilities, disagreed with some of the audit's conclusions and attributed any negligence to managerial "weakness" of the lab's former operator, the University of California, which had crossed 32 problems off the list despite not having rectified them. The current contract operator, Los Alamos National Security (a partnership among Bechtel Corp., Babcock & Wilcox's BWX Technologies, the University of California, and the URS Corp.'s Washington Group International), took over after the 2006 evaluation and is in charge of making sure that fire safety standards are followed. The NNSA declined to comment.

In the meantime, the lab has earmarked $4 million to help resolve any lingering problems, and in February it launched a new Fire Protection Division "to help prioritize and identify these issues—and get to work on them," says Los Alamos spokesperson Kevin Roark.

"We believe we've made considerable progress," Roark adds. Among the improvements, he notes, is the replacement of thousands of outdated sprinkler heads.

The $5.9-billion laboratory consists of some 1,800 buildings and sits on 25,600 acres (10,350 hectares) of arid New Mexico land, 35 miles (56 kilometers) from the state capital, Santa Fe.

Comment of the Week

2009-07-10T12:19:00.002-06:00

There will not be a COW award again this week. Instead of reading LTRS comments for the past 11 days, I was otherwise engaged.

--Doug

Spill at LANL Waste Plant

2009-07-10T09:48:00.002-06:00

Frank's laptop died this morning, and so he asked me to post for him this John Fleck news article from yesterday's Albuquerque Journal.

___________________________________

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

A 40-year-old plant at Los Alamos National Laboratory that treats liquid radioactive waste had another leak last month as some members of Congress are balking at the rising costs of the plant's replacement.

The leak happened when a plastic connector cracked, spilling 500 gallons of contaminated water onto the floor inside one of the plant's buildings, according to a report from federal nuclear safety officials. The water flowed into a sump inside the building, and none of it escaped, according to the report.

The incident highlights the increasingly fragile nature of the aging plant. In a report to Congress earlier this year, the National Nuclear Security Administration said the portions of the plant's waste treatment systems “are over 40 years old and their reliability is significantly diminishing.”
But a key House committee this week eliminated funding for major upgrades, complaining about “significant cost overruns” for the project.

The June incident is the second time in the last year that a similar plastic part cracked, causing a leak, according to a report from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a federal body that provides independent oversight at Los Alamos and other nuclear weapon sites.

The Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility, located in the lab's Technical Area 50, came on line in 1963.

The plant, connected by a network of piping to 63 buildings at Los Alamos, treats water contaminated with radioactive materials as a result of work on nuclear weapons and other projects at Los Alamos.

Los Alamos spokesman Kevin Roark acknowledged that the plant “does not comply with current codes and standards,” including seismic, building and electrical codes.

The Safety Board has argued that problems at the waste treatment plant threaten the lab's ability to carry out work with radioactive plutonium done at Los Alamos to maintain U.S. nuclear weapons, because continued breakdowns would leave no way to deal with the radioactive waste the work creates.

Roark said the spill was cleaned up within days and did not interrupt operations at the plant.
In 2006, the National Nuclear Security Administration estimated the cost for waste management upgrades at $80 million to $100 million, but a budget report sent to Congress this year said it was likely to rise.

The House Appropriations Committee voted this week to cut all funding for the project, with committee members saying they are “concerned with the significant cost overruns” on the project and want to delay spending until design issues can be resolved.

Roark declined comment on the House committee's vote to cut funding for the project. “It is much too early in the appropriations process to assess potential future impacts,” he said.